quantitative aspects of stratigraphic onshore- offshore ...€¦ · sømme, t.o., helland-hansen,...

261NORWEGIAN JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY Quantitative aspects of stratigraphic onshore-offshore relationships along the western margin of southern Norway

Introduction

The spatial and temporal links between geomorphology, tectonics and stratigraphy along the western margin of southern Norway have attracted significant research interest during the last century. Long before the acceptance of plate tectonic processes and the recognition of the offshore stratigraphic record, geomorphologists had proposed fundamental ideas suggesting that the Norwegian margin comprises elements of ancient, or paleic, landscapes located adjacent to morphological landscape elements shaped by much more recent glacial processes (e.g., Reusch, 1901; Strøm, 1948; Gjessing, 1967). Despite the wealth of new data and techniques that have become available during the last few decades, some of the most fundamental research questions asked by the century-old geomorphologists still puzzle geoscientists today (see, for example, discussion in and reply to Nielsen et al., 2009 and Gabrielsen et al., 2010).

A number of recent studies have focused on specific

time periods, processes and approaches that can help to understand the onshore-offshore development of the western margin of southern Norway. Offshore, a number of studies have applied stratigraphic analysis from 2D/3D seismic reflection and well data in order to link the stratigraphic record to long-term changes in external forcing and onshore uplift (e.g., Japsen, 1998; Martinsen et al., 1999, 2005; Gabrielsen et al., 2001, 2005, Hamberg et al., 2005; Henriksen et al., 2005; Japsen et al., 2007, 2010; Sømme & Jackson, 2013). Others have used offshore sediment volumes to constrain onshore denudation and sediment delivery, covering time periods extending from the Quaternary back to the Late Mesozoic (e.g., Liu & Galloway, 1997; Anell et al., 2010; Dowdeswell et al., 2010; Hjelstuen et al., 2012; Steer et al., 2012; Sømme et al., 2013a). Recent improvements in biostratigraphic analysis and isotope dating have in addition improved the correlation between offshore sedimentary units (e.g., Rundberg & Eidvin, 2005; Eidvin & Rundberg, 2007, Eidvin et al., 2010), and provenance work has identified sediment routing systems and

Sømme, T.O., Helland-Hansen, W. & Martinsen, O.J.: Quantitative aspects of stratigraphic onshore-offshore relationships along the western margin of southern Norway: implications for Late Mesozoic and Cenozoic topographic evolution. Norwegian Journal of Geology, Vol 93, pp. 261–276. Trondheim 2013, ISSN 029-196X.

One of the most debated topics in Norwegian geology relates to the long-term topographic evolution of the Norwegian margin and the link between onshore topography and offshore stratigraphy during the Phanerozoic. Different workers have attempted to address this topic quantitatively by relating calculated offshore sediment volumes to onshore sediment production rates and/or geomorphological observations at various spatial and temporal scales. Here, we review some of the recent advances with emphasis on the onshore-offshore coupling between landscapes and stratigraphy. We find that the different methods are associated with various strengths, weaknesses and fundamental assumptions that are hard to constrain with existing data. We also present new data from Eocene and Oligocene deep-water deposits that help to constrain the Palaeogene landscape topography along the western margin of southern Norway. We conclude that the great variability in sediment supply rates and stratigraphic organisation obser-ved in the Jurassic to Palaeogene succession can best be explained by recurrent periods of tectonic reactivation of hinterland topography in the latest Jurassic, earliest Palaeocene and earliest Oligocene. Although relatively short-lived periods of climate deterioration also influenced sediment production and transport during these time periods, we suggest that first-order fluctuations in sediment flux can best be explained by long-term tectonic rejuvenation of the onshore topography.

Tor O. Sømme, Statoil, Martin Linges vei 33, 1330 Fornebu, Norway. William Helland-Hansen, Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen, Allégaten 41, 5007 Bergen, Norway. Ole J. Martinsen, Statoil, PO Box 7200, 5020 Bergen, Norway.

E-mail corresponding author (Tor O. Sømme): [email protected]

Tor O. Sømme, William Helland-Hansen & Ole J. Martinsen

Quantitative aspects of stratigraphic onshore- offshore relationships along the western margin of southern Norway: implications for Late Mesozoic and Cenozoic topographic evolution

262 T.O. Sømme et al. NORWEGIAN JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY

al., 2010; Gołędowski et al., 2011). Specifically, average sediment volumes derived from seismically mapped isopachs have been used as an indication of sediment flux and hinterland erosion rates, whereas location of isopach thickness trends, clinoform progradational patterns and other seismically derived proxies for palaeotransport directions together with provenance studies have been used to infer sediment routing patterns. Together, these have formed the basis for inferring timing and localisation of tectonic and climatic perturbations.

Relatively few studies apply quantitative approaches linking sediment budgets to variations in onshore relief or climate through time. In this paper we review some of the recent studies that have tested these methods, with a specific geographical focus on the area south of the Trøndelag Platform and north of the Stavanger Platform (Fig. 1). In addition, we also present new data and results from an analysis of Eocene and Oligocene stratigraphic intervals, building on recent results by Sømme et al. (2013a), in order to shed new light on this recent debate.

Quantitative approaches

Quantitative approaches fall into two categories. The first method uses areally extensive and time constrained offshore sediment volumes from isopachs to backfill the onshore margin landscape in order to estimate denudation rates and tectonic perturbations, here referred to as ’regional isopach backfilling’. One of the main weaknesses

source areas along the margin (e.g., Fonneland et al., 2004; Kuhlman et al., 2004; Morton et al., 2005; Mørk & Johnsen, 2005; Paul et al., 2009; Olivarius et al., 2014). In the onshore domain, geomorphological studies and advancement in surface process controls have expanded on old concepts and generated new ideas on the forcing mechanism behind the landscape morphology we observe today (e.g., Lidmar-Bergström et al., 2000, 2013; Etzelmüller et al., 2007; Berthling & Etzelmüller, 2011; Strømsøe & Paasche, 2011). In addition, structural studies in combination with absolute dating of local fault activity and periods of regional uplift from AFT data have significantly improved our knowledge of the tectonic history along the margin (e.g., Eide et al., 1999; Redfield et al., 2005; Hendriks et al., 2007; Fossen, 2010; Ksíenzyk, 2012). Also, higher–resolution potential field and newly acquired deep-crustal seismic data have allowed more detailed modelling and improved our understanding of the deep crustal role in margin evolution (e.g., Mosar 2003; Svenningsen et al., 2007; Ebbing & Olesen, 2010).

Despite this recent advancement, fundamental questions that still lack a general consensus relate to the relative age of surfaces and landscape elements onshore, the amount, timing and mode of uplift events along the margin, and the relative role of forcing factors (e.g., tectonics, isostasy, climate, eustasy) controlling topography and sediment production onshore, and deposition along the offshore margin. The fact that so many questions still remain unanswered suggests that it is hard to find conclusive answers in specific geoscience disciplines, and that future progress lies in multidisciplinary approaches and data synthesis (e.g., Smelror et al., 2007; Nielsen et al., 2009).

Fundamental ideas are still polarised into two different schools: the first and traditional viewpoint attributes perturbations in general and the uplift of the paleic landscape in western Scandinavia in particular to tectonic controls (e.g., Riis, 1996; Liu & Galloway, 1997; Japsen & Chalmers, 2000; Anell et al., 2010; Gabrielsen et al., 2010). The second and more recent model links offshore stratigraphic variations predominantly to climatic and eustatic controls with less emphasis on tectonics (Nielsen et al., 2009; Gołędowski et al., 2011; Clausen et al., 2012).

We believe that the offshore stratigraphy holds the best–preserved record of long-term landscape change along the southern Norwegian margin where the resolution of available fission–track data is too low to unequivocally resolve Neogene uplift, and where there are no outcropping Mesozoic strata that can help identify the landward extent of ancient basins. Common for many hypotheses and models based on offshore stratigraphic analysis is the fact that inferences are mostly based on qualitative assessments linking variations in sediment calibre, sediment volumes and estimated sediment-supply rates to potential hinterland perturbations (Liu & Galloway, 1997; Rundberg & Eidvin, 2005; Anell et

30° E

20° E

20° E

10° E

10° E

0°

0° 10° W

65° N 65° N

60° N 60° N

55° N 55° N

No

rw

ay

S h e t la n d

P l at f

o r m

U K

Danish-

Norwegian SeaStavanger Platform

HordaPlatform

TrøndelagPlatform

L o f ot e

n

Elevation (m)2500

0

-4000

Figure 1. Overview of the western margin of southern Norway. The small and large red boxes show the focus areas of Oligocene and Eocene, and Jurassic, Cretaceous and Palaeocene volume calculations in Fig. 3, respectively.


parts of the margin, but this is of minor importance since individual catchments are likely to be representative for larger areas.

Although techniques and approaches overlap from a temporal perspective, data availability and resolution vary significantly with time. Below, we combine reviews of published quantitative approaches (largely regional isopach backfilling) with our own approach (local catchment reconstruction). We start the discussion with the Mesozoic and move forward in time, focusing at selected time intervals.

Mesozoic Quantifying onshore-offshore relationships from the Late Palaeozoic and into the Early Mesozoic (pre-Jurassic) along the southwestern Norwegian margin is challenging due to a poorer understanding of basin configuration and sediment source areas, poorer seismic quality and overall lower stratigraphic age control compared to the younger stratigraphic levels.

Offshore data are better constrained for the later part of the Mesozoic (Jurassic and Cretaceous), when the margin was flanked by marine basins and when erosion products were deposited in discrete depositional systems. Although no attempts have been made to calculate sediment budgets for Early Jurassic systems, facies trends in wells, seismic stratigraphy and provenance data show that the south Norwegian landmass represented a prominent source area during this time (e.g., Hamar et al., 1983; Gjelberg et al., 1987; Dreyer et al., 2005; Mørk & Johnsen, 2005; Morton & Chenery, 2009; Paul et al., 2009; Folkestad et al., 2011). It is therefore clear that the Early Jurassic landscape must have been characterised by significant topographic relief in order to have supplied large quantities of coarse-grained sediment to the offshore basins.

The south Norwegian landmass continued to be an important provenance area for the Brent Delta (Morton, 1992), which prograded northward in the central part of the proto-North Sea during the Mid Jurassic (Fig. 2; Helland-Hansen et al., 1992). The same pattern continued in the Late Jurassic, when thick, sand-dominated systems developed along the western margin (Fig. 2; Hamar et al., 1983; Sneider et al., 1995; Dreyer et al., 2005). Provenance data from the Bergen area confirm the local sediment sources (Knudsen & Fossen, 2001).

Many arguments in the recent debate on the long-term evolution of the south Norwegian landmass relate to the topography in the Cretaceous. Despite the amount of data available from the offshore basins, the Cretaceous landscape has been inferred by some to have been largely flooded (e.g., Ziegler, 1990; Doré, 1992; Lidmar-Bergström et al., 2013), whereas others have suggested

with this method is linked to the difficulty in constraining the area where sediments should be back-filled, as sediments contributing to areally extensive isopachs are likely to have been derived from multiple catchments covering vast areas and even in some cases derived from more than one margin. This method has mainly been applied to the Late Palaeogene and Neogene time periods (Anell et al., 2010; Dowdeswell et al., 2010; Hjelstuen et al., 2012; Steer et al., 2012)

The second method is referred to as ’local catchment reconstruction’ and focuses on local offshore depocentres that can be linked to individual onshore catchments. Using spatially constrained depocentres in combination with scaling relationships between depositional elements within and between these systems provides information about catchment areas and reliefs (Sømme et al., 2009, 2013a). This method has been applied to the Late Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene and Oligocene time intervals, and the results from these analyses will be elaborated in this paper.

Specifically, local catchment reconstruction links deposition rates to palaeotopography and assumes that the volume of sediment preserved between two seismic surfaces relates to the volume of sediment supplied from ancient river systems. Moreover, if estimates of drainage area and mean annual temperature at the time of deposition can be made, this information can be used to estimate palaeotopography. This is done by applying a scaling equation (the ’BQART-model’), presented by Syvitski & Milliman (2007), where they relate sediment flux to a number of climatic and morphological parameters in modern river systems. The different variables that go into the equation are associated with several uncertainties; these are expressed as ranges (min, mean and max), and included in a Monte Carlo simulation in order to predict the range of possible topography scenarios associated with an observed sediment flux. Of the many uncertainties that are associated with these estimates, perhaps the most crucial is stratigraphic age control (affecting deposition rate), and the potential of missing sediment along the shelf-slope to deep-water transect. In addition, deposition rates tend to decrease when averaged over long time spans due to the discontinuous nature of the sediment dispersal system (e.g., Sadler & Strauss, 1990; Schumer & Jerolmack, 2009). A more lengthy discussion on the assumptions, implications and uncertainties associated with this method is presented in Sømme et al. (2013a).

Although local catchment reconstruction is associated with uncertainties related to capturing ’true’ sediment fluxes and ancient drainage morphology, our hypothesis is that this is more robust than the first method (backfilling of regional isopachs) and is equally well suitable for obtaining information about the landscape relief at the time of deposition. Implicit in the methodology is that assumptions will be valid for only


that it was dominated by a topography possibly even higher than today (e.g., Nielsen et al., 2009).

No regional backfilling work has been done for any of these Jurassic–Cretaceous intervals. In the next section we will briefly review the results from local catchment reconstructions reported by Sømme et al. (2013a).

Local catchment reconstruction

Late JurassicLate Jurassic sediment wedges are among the oldest, well-defined depocentres that can be tied to specific source areas along the south Norwegian margin. Sømme et al. (2013a) attempted to relate the offshore sediment volume in some of these depocentres to the onshore source region in order to estimate the hinterland topography at the time of deposition.

A prominent (>1000 m thick), Upper Jurassic sediment wedge (the ’Hardangerfjorden Unit’; Figs. 2, 4) is located offshore the present-day Hardangerfjord area (Fig. 3), suggesting that a large fluvial system drained the region along and inland of the Inner Boundary Fault system. Similarly, a large but slightly older drainage system supplied sediment to the present-day Sognefjord region, depositing the Krossfjord, Fensfjord and Sognefjord formations (Figs. 2, 3). Analysis of seismic-reflection and well data shows that these systems did not overlap in time, leading Sømme et al. (2013a) to suggest that a major shift in drainage occurred from the Sognefjord area to the Hardangerfjord area during Oxfordian–Kimmeridgian time. Further analysis of preserved sediment volumes and possible palaeodrainage scenarios in these areas indicate that the Late Jurassic topography was around 1.6 km in southern Norway (Sømme et al., 2013a). These estimates are hampered by uncertainties related to age constraints of the deposited systems and volumetric constraints of the sediment budget. In the Horda Platform area, for example, large parts of the basin were probably very shallow, causing wave and tidal currents to redistribute sediment over a large area. In addition, high-resolution biostratigraphic analysis shows that there are prominent stratigraphic breaks (unconformities) within the section (Dreyer et al., 2005). Both of these factors give an underestimation of the supply rate to the offshore basin as well as an underestimation of accompanying relief calculations.

Late CretaceousIn the southernmost part of the Norwegian margin, the Upper Cretaceous succession is dominated by a westward progradation of a carbonate-dominated platform/ramp

Lysing fans

Ormen Lange fan

Hardanger-fjord unit

Sogne-fjord Fm

Fens-fjord Fm

Kross-fjord Fm

Brent Gr

North South

Tortonian

Serravallian

Langhian

Burdigalian

Aquitanian

Rupelian

Chattian

Messinian

“Chalk Sea”

Mio

cen

e

Plio.

Plei.

Ne

og

en

eE

oce

ne

E

E

E

M

M

M

M

L

L

L

LE

L

Pa

lae

og

en

eP

ala

eo

cen

eO

ligo

cen

e

Danian

Selandian

Thanetian

Ypresian

Lutetian

Bartonian

Priabonian

Cre

tace

ou

s

Maastrichtian

Jura

ssic

Late

Early

Campanian

Santonian

Turonian

Coniacian

Cenomanian

Late

Middle

Age(Ma)

StageEpochPeriod Trøndelag Platform

Stavanger Platform

Albian

Aptian

Berriasian

Barremian

Valanginian

Hauterivian

Kimmeridgian

Tithonian

Oxfordian

Callovian

Bathonian

Bajocian

Aalenian

70

15

40

75

20

45

80

25

50

85

30

55

95

65

10

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

90

35

60

5

145

150

155

165

170

175

160

Oligocene fans

Mud-dominated

Sand-dominated clastic wedges

Sand-dominateddeep-marine

Carbonate-dominated

Locally sand-dominated clastic wedges

Nordland Gr.

Hordaland Gr.

Rogaland Gr.

Cromer Knoll Gr.

Eocene fans

Figure 2. Simplified lithostratigraphy of the area between the Stavanger Platform and the Trøndelag Platform highlighting spatial and temporal relationships between key units and formations discussed in the text.


Figure 3. Overview of key locations, structural elements and sediment thickness maps used to estimate onshore relief at different time intervals from the Late Jurassic to the Oligocene. Elevation values refer to ’best guess’ estimates for each time period. MTFC – Møre-Trøndelag Fault Complex; IBF – Inner Boundary Fault; ØFC – Øygarden Fault Complex; NSDZ – Nordfjord–Sogn Detachment Zone.


east compared to the present, and if the topography was around or lower than 0.5 km.

North of the Horda Platform, the situation is quite different. Here, seismic-reflection and well data show prominent deep-water systems sourced from the mainland at regular intervals through the Cretaceous (Figs. 2, 3, 5; Skibeli et al., 1995; Bugge et al., 2001, Vergara et al., 2001; Fugelli & Olsen, 2005; Martinsen et al., 2005; Jackson et al., 2008; Sømme & Jackson, 2013; Sømme et al., 2013b). These systems are characterised by deep-water channel and fan systems, many of which are sourced through long-lived canyons incised into underlying deposits and/or basement. Variable facies and grain sizes suggest that these systems were supplied by high-efficiency dispersal systems in close proximity to the final depocentres. Using sediment

starved from input of coarse siliciclastic material (Figs. 2, 4; Surlyk et al., 2003). This long-term absence of coarse clastics close to the mainland and the style of truncation of the Cretaceous succession below the Base Pleistocene unconformity (Fig. 4) have been used as key arguments for an overall low Cretaceous topography and a shoreline located significantly farther to the east compared to the present (e.g., Doré, 1992; Gabrielsen et al., 2010).

Palaeobathymetric reconstructions by Wien & Kjennerud (2005) suggest relatively shallow water depths and thus relatively low accommodation along the eastern margin of the ’Chalk Sea’. Using the efficiency of modern river systems as analogues, Sømme et al. (2013a) calculated that the best way of explaining the absence of coarse clastics in the later part of the Cretaceous is if the shoreline was located approximately 50 km farther

Underfilled water Cretaceous

deep-

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

Top Hardangerfjord

Top Cromer Knoll

Top Balder

No significant thickness variation, onlap or toplap trends within UpperCretaceous sucession

17/4-1

Top Mid Jurassic

Base Hardangerfjord

250 m

s

5 km

~250 m

Base Pleistocene unconformity

Base Tertiary unconformity

EW

Underfilled water Cretaceous

deep-

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

Top Hardangerfjord

Top Cromer Knoll

Top Rogaland Gr.

No significant thickness variation, onlap or toplap trends within UpperCretaceous succession

17/4-1

Top Mid Jurassic

Base Hardangerfjord

250 m

s

5 km

~250 m

Base Pleistocene unconformity

Base Tertiary unconformity

EW

Figure 4. Seismic reflection line showing the progradational Hardangerfjorden shelf-slope wedge overlain by a thick Lower Cretaceous succession. The Upper Cretaceous succession between the ’Top Cromer Knoll’ and ’Base Tertiary unconformity’ horizons is very thin and shows no distinct thickness changes landward or basinward. This unit is interpreted to represent the distal part of a system developed when the shoreline was located up to 50 km farther east than the present-day shoreline, and when the inland relief was about or less than 500 m. See Fig. 3 for line location.

Figure 5. Seismic reflection line showing Upper Mesozoic and Cenozoic stratigraphic geometries and the mapped Lower Oligocene fan. Note the change in depositional style going from the Cretaceous, underfilled, deep-water setting to Palaeocene–Eocene shelf-slope progradation and on to stacked highstand and lowstand wedges above the Oligocene fan. LW – lowstand wedge. See Fig. 3 for line location.


The work of Gołędowski et al. (2011) and Anell et al. (2010) are among the few where offshore volumes are quantitatively applied to infer margin perturbations. Gołędowski et al. (2011) estimated that the elevation of the area west of the present Scandinavian drainage divide north to Lofoten would increase with an average of only 100 m when backfilling Oligocene to Mid-Miocene matrix volumes, but with expectedly large local variations.

Anell et al. (2010) estimated sediment accumulation rates for 7 time intervals for the North Sea through the Cenozoic. They also constructed two onshore surface envelopes for the southern Norwegian mainland (in addition to parts of Sweden): a summit envelope (connecting all peaks) and a ’Paleic envelope’ (connecting all peaks <1500 m) to compare offshore matrix volumes with missing volumes between the surface envelopes and the present topography. Such comparisons were carried out for the Sognefjorden catchment (see Quaternary section below), for the western fjords region, for southern Norway, and for southern Norway including parts of southern Sweden. Specifically, Anell et al. (2010) compared the missing volumes beneath the two summit surfaces with the Oligocene to Early Pliocene offshore volumes inferred to be sourced from southern Norway and southern Sweden. When compared to southern Norway alone, these calculations showed that the rock-converted sediment volumes were larger than the missing volumes beneath the Paleic surface, but comparable to the volumes missing beneath the summit surface. This could imply that the excavation of the summit surface took place no earlier than during the Oligocene. Moreover, they suggest that the formation of the Paleic surface should post-date the formation of the summit surface and its subsequent early excavation.

This line of reasoning suggests that the Paleic surface probably would be of Late Cenozoic and definitely not of Mesozoic age. However, from provenance considerations it is plausible that sediments were derived not only from Norway but also Sweden and Finland (Knudsen et al., 2005). When calculating missing volumes for southern Norway in addition to parts of southern Sweden, Anell et al. (2010) found that only about 45% of the missing volume below the Paleic surface can be accounted for in offshore volumes.

Finally, Anell et al. (2010) compared Pliocene sediment volumes from the Viking Graben to the western fjords drainage area, and the Pliocene in the Viking Graben together with parts of the Central Graben were compared to the whole of southern Norway. These successions are believed, provenance-wise, to be better constrained than the older Cenozoic successions, with a main contribution from the Fennoscandian Shield. For this interval, Anell et al. (2010) found that around 20% of the missing material beneath the Paleic surface in the western fjord drainage and in South Norway can be accounted for by these

volumes from eight different Turonian fan systems (Lysing Formation; Figs. 2, 3) and their lateral spacing along the margin, it is inferred that these systems were supplied by relatively small but steep drainage systems with moderate topography of around 0.5 km inboard of the Møre–Trøndelag Fault Complex (Sømme & Jackson, 2013; Sømme et al., 2013b). Hence, the contrast from south to north along the Late Cretaceous margin is mainly expressed by differences in the steepness of the topography and distance from source-to-sink rather than by relief itself.

CenozoicThe western Norwegian margin persisted as an important sediment source through most of the Cenozoic. Sedimentation rates were relatively high in the Palaeocene, but diminished significantly during the Eocene (e.g., Martinsen et al., 1999; Henriksen et al., 2005; Rasmussen et al., 2008; Anell et al., 2010; Gołędowski et al., 2011). A new increase in deposition rates occurred in the Early Oligocene; this was followed by a gradual decrease during the Miocene, a trend that was replaced by a substantial increase in supply rates in the Mid Pliocene (Anell et al., 2010; Gołędowski et al., 2011). Even though the Norwegian margin was important, the most pronounced Palaeogene sediment volumes were delivered from the west (East Shetland Platform) (Liu & Galloway, 1997; Faleide et al., 2002; Anell et al., 2010; Gołędowski et al., 2011). In the Neogene, depositional patterns shifted towards more southerly sources and transport directions. The Miocene period was dominated by progradation and deposition of a major deltaic system in the Danish–Norwegian Sea (Faleide et al., 2002; Rasmussen, 2004; Rasmussen & Dybkjær, 2013) that was partly sourced from southern Norway (Olivarius et al., 2014). Farther north, the Miocene was associated with a basinward shift of depocentres with much of the period being represented by a hiatus that locally cut into the underlying Oligocene succession (Martinsen et al., 1999; Henriksen et al., 2005; Rundberg & Eidvin, 2005). A similar pattern continued during the Pliocene, before extensive glaciations started to control both onshore and offshore erosion and sediment distribution along the margin.

Most papers dealing with the Cenozoic evolution of the North and Norwegian Seas agree in central issues related to the main offshore Cenozoic stratigraphic elements, including sedimentation–rate trends, timing of major discontinuities and location of sediment transport routes (e.g., Liu & Galloway, 1997; Faleide et al., 2002; Anell et al., 2010; Gołędowski et al., 2011). Rather, the controversy is related to how the changes in deposition rates and stratigraphic organisation are interpreted. Since the traditional viewpoint has been that the paleic landscape is a result of Cenozoic uplift of western Scandinavia, the quantitative analysis of this period becomes particularly pertinent.


with relatively deep-water conditions offshore and transgression of the present-day mainland (Knox et al., 2010). Palaeobathymetric reconstructions also suggest that deep-water conditions prevailed farther north along the western coast (Faleide et al., 2002). In the Møre–Trøndelag area, the Eocene succession presents a new phase of margin progradation above a major Palaeocene–Eocene flooding surface (Martinsen et al., 1999; Henriksen et al., 2005). This progradational phase was associated with the development of a submarine fan system located ~40 km WNW of present-day Nordfjord (Fig. 3).

The top and base of this fan have been mapped in order to calculate the sediment volume used as input to the prediction model (Fig. 3). The fan is up to 300 m thick and covers an area of ~1200 km2. Internally, seismic facies is characterised by low- to high-amplitude, parallel to discontinuous reflectors indicative of gravity-flow deposits. Data from well 35/3–5 suggest that the upper part of the Eocene succession is missing (Henriksen et al., 2005), and that the fan is confined to the Ypresian Stage.

The drainage systems feeding sediment to the fan may have extended as far inland as the present-day water divide, and this is used as the maximum length of the palaeodrainage (Table 1). The minimum size is set by the outermost structural boundaries defining the southwestern continuation of the Møre–Trøndelag Fault Complex. In terms of climate at the time of deposition, the Early Eocene Epoch was among the warmest recorded during the Phanerozoic, with a mean annual temperature of well over 20°C in central Germany (Utescher et al., 2009).

Based on the sediment volume, time of deposition, and ranges of onshore drainage extent (Table 1), a Monte Carlo simulation shows that the amount of sediment preserved in the Eocene fan can best be calculated by a topography in the Nordfjord area of 0.2 km (90% confidence range of 0.1–0.3 km). Since the calculated volumes do not include the shallow-marine and shelfal part of the system, these values are considered to be on the low side unless the majority of the sediment was bypassed to the deep-water part of the basin.

offshore volumes. This suggests that the incision into the Paleic surface took place prior to the Pliocene. Local catchment reconstruction

PalaeoceneThe Palaeocene succession along the southwestern Norwegian margin varies significantly in thickness from tens of metres in the southernmost part to >1000 m outboard of the Møre–Trøndelag region (Fig. 3; Anell et al., 2010; Gołędowski et al., 2011; Sømme et al., 2013a). Along the Møre–Trøndelag region, there is a marked shift from a gravity-flow dominated and an underfilled style of deposition (sensu Hadler-Jacobsen et al., 2005) in the Cretaceous to a shelf-slope-wedge dominated, overfilled style of deposition in the Palaeocene (Fig. 5), reflecting a major change in depositional pattern. Although the Palaeocene Rogaland Group is overall mud dominated, the abrupt increase in sediment flux observed along the margin has been inferred to reflect regional uplift (e.g., Martinsen et al., 1999; Faleide et al., 2002; Henriksen et al., 2005). Mapping of the Palaeocene succession along the south Norwegian margin revealed a number of discrete depocentres (Fig. 3) inferred to reflect sediment input from individual drainage systems (Sømme et al., 2013a). Using the observed sediment volumes in combination with ranges of possible palaeodrainage scenarios, Sømme et al. (2013a) estimated that this can best be explained by a Palaeocene topography of about 1.1 km inboard of the Møre–Trøndelag region, decreasing to around 0.5 km in the southernmost part. The marked decrease in sediment thickness, and thus also inferred palaeotopography southwards along the margin, indicates that the mechanisms behind this perturbation also were asymmetric and affected only parts of the margin.

Eocene The Eocene succession is generally quite thin (<500 m) along the southern Norwegian margin, but reaches greater thicknesses in local depocentres (Martinsen et al., 1999; Jordt et al., 2000; Faleide et al., 2002, Anell et al., 2011; Gołędowski et al., 2011). In the southernmost part, the Eocene period is believed to have been associated

Table 1. Input parameters and results from Monte Carlo simulation.

Stratigraphic unitDuration

(Myr) mean (range)

Deposition rate (MT yr -1)

mean (range)

Catchment length (km)

mean (range)

Catchment area (km2)

mean (range)

Mean annual temp.(°C)

mean (range)

Estimated relief (km) mean

(90% confidence)

Eocene

Submarine fan 7.2 (6.2-8.2) 0.18 (0.16–0.21) 100 (80–120) 2130 (1200–3300) 20 (22–25) 0.19 (0.12–0.29)

Oligocene

Northern submarine fan 5 (2–6) 1.02 (0.85–1.27) 100 (80–120) 2130 (1200–3300) 15 (13–17) 2.34 (1.41–3.82)

Southern submarine fan 5 (2–6) 1.51 (1.26–3.89) 100 (80–120) 2130 (1200–3300) 15 (13–17) 1.58 (0.99–2.46)


topography of ~1.6 km (90% confidence range of 1.0–2.5 km) and 2.3 km (90% confidence range of 1.4–3.8 km) in the Nordfjord and Storfjord area, respectively. Similar to the Eocene, these values may underestimate the flux and thus the relief, since they do not include the shallow-marine transect of the ancient routing system. At the same time, the apparent amount of mass-transport related facies may suggest that part of the fan volume was derived from a mass failure of the upper slope, which would overestimate the flux and topography.

QuaternaryOne of the key questions that has recently received a lot of attention is the age of the present-day landscape and the role of Quaternary (or latest Neogene) glacial and periglacial processes in shaping the landscape morphology we observe today. Traditionally, the high-altitude, low-relief landscape located between and inland of the western fjords has been considered as remnants of older (pre-glacial) Late Mesozoic or Early Cenozoic terrains that have been uplifted to their present elevations (e.g., Gjessing, 1967; Torske, 1972; Lidmar-Berstrøm et al., 2000). However, no Mesozoic–Cenozoic pre-glacial sediments crop out onshore, making it impossible to document the inland extent of potential Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary basins. Similarly, the validity of applying fission-track data in order to quantify the magnitude and distribution of Late Neogene uplift is disputed (see discussion in Nielsen et al., 2009). Thus, even for the last few millions of years it is difficult to confidently outline the distribution of topography in southern Norway.

To address these issues, several attempts have been made to indirectly quantify onshore erosion during the Quaternary by using offshore sediment volumes and deposition rates as a proxy for erosion rates. Dowdeswell et al. (2010) calculated Quaternary sediment volumes offshore of the Mid-Norwegian margin and used that to estimate average erosion rates of 0.19 m kyr-1 for the last 2.7 Myr (equalling an average of ~520 m of bedrock erosion). They did, however, recognise a number of uncertainties related to the backfilling of offshore sediments. These relate to how the sediments are distributed in the fjords and the surrounding hinterland, the role of warm- versus cold-based ice, and the relative contribution from erosion of pre-Quaternary (Cenozoic and Mesozoic) sediments along the margin. Using a similar approach, Hjelstuen et al. (2012) calculated volumes for the last ~1,1 Myr in the Norwegian Channel and North Sea Fan, but included a larger part of southern Norway in their backfilling process and concluded that the offshore volumes reflect an average erosion rate of 0.15 m kyr-1 (equalling an average of ~164 m of bedrock erosion).

By using the same offshore sediment volumes as Dowdeswell et al. (2010), recent work by Steer et al.

OligoceneBasinward of the Nordfjord area, the Lower Oligocene succession is represented by two coalescing submarine fan systems sourced from the Norwegian mainland during yet a new phase of margin progradation (Fig. 3; Martinsen et al., 1999). The northernmost fan is up to ~500 m thick, covers an area of ~2000 km2, and was probably sourced from a drainage system located directly inboard of the fan between the present-day Nordfjord and Storfjord areas. The seismic facies (Fig. 5) between the top and base reflectors used to calculate fan volume varies from parallel, discontinuous, high-amplitude reflectors to mounded, chaotic features indicating elements of both gravity flow and mass-transport deposition.

Similar to the northern fan, the southern fan also reaches a thickness up to 500 m, but in contrast, the fan has a much more elongated shape, covering an area of ~4000 km2 (Fig. 3). A ~6 km-wide submarine channel complex feeding sediment to the fan is penetrated by well 36/1–2, documenting ~120 m of sandy sediment enriched in pebbles in the lower part (Eidvin et al., 2010). Dating of the same deposits also suggests that this fan was deposited during the early part of the Oligocene, between ~32 and ~27 Ma (Eidvin et al., 2010). Also the southern fan is dominated by alternating parallel, high-amplitude reflectors and mounded, chaotic features indicating elements of both gravity–flow and mass-transport deposition.

In the Nordfjord–Storfjord area, the top of the Oligocene fans marks a composite onlap and downlap surface (Fig. 5). In seismic, this is expressed by an overlying, strongly progradational shelf-slope wedge showing evidence of a descending, followed by an ascending, shelf-edge trajectory. From a sequence-stratigraphic perspective, this can be interpreted to reflect forced regression as the shelf-slope wedge prograded above the uppermost part of the fan, followed by aggradation and finally abrupt retrogradation as the accommodation outpaced sediment flux. We speculate that these observations point to key aspects of Oligocene margin development.

Similar to the Eocene fan, it appears that the southern Oligocene fan was sourced from an area near or just south of present-day Nordfjord. The northern fan was probably sourced from a drainage north of Stadt, near present-day Storfjord. Even though the outlet position of the drainage may have varied slightly, it is inferred that the fundamental controls on the extent of the inboard drainage remained the same as during the Eocene. In terms of climate, the Early Oligocene Epoch saw a major cooling trend with temperatures of around 15°C in central Europe (Utescher et al., 2009).

Based on the sediment volume, time of deposition, and ranges of onshore drainage extent (Table 1), Monte Carlo simulation shows that the amount of sediment preserved in the two Oligocene fans can best be described by a


rifting affected the Møre–Trøndelag Fault Complex, the Inner Boundary Fault and the Øygarden Fault Complex, resulting in a major change in basin configuration offshore and a shift of drainage from the Sognefjord area to the Hardangerfjord area.

During the Cretaceous, the southern part of the margin was onlapped, reflecting increased subsidence offshore and topographic lowering onshore. Long-term topographic denudation combined with overall high eustatic sea level resulted in the lowest relief and the most landward position of the coastline during the Late Cretaceous. The long-term absence (~20 Myr of coarse clastics within the ’Chalk Sea’ south of the Horda Platform is best explained by a coastline situated ~50 km east of the present-day coast, and a low relief of around or less than ~0.5 km (Fig. 6; Sømme et al., 2013a). Only a combination of small drainage systems and low relief can explain such an extensive period of starvation of coarse clastic material.

A significant change in style of basin fill occurred near the Cretaceous–Palaeocene transition, when large volumes of sediment were delivered to the northern part of the south Norwegian margin, forming sediment wedges that are up to ~1000 m thick (Figs. 3, 5; Martinsen et al., 1999; Faleide et al., 2002; Henriksen et al., 2005; Wien & Kjennerud, 2005; Sømme et al., 2013a). A similar style of deposition, albeit with significantly lower deposition rates, continued into the Eocene. Our palaeotopographic estimates suggest that the relief may have increased from ~0.5 km in the Late Cretaceous, to ~1.1 km in the Palaeocene, followed by a decrease, perhaps to as low as a few hundred metres in some places (near the Nordfjord and Storfjord area) in the Eocene (Fig. 6). Both the Late Cretaceous and the Eocene relief estimates may be underestimated due to the absence of time-equivalent shallow-marine deposits; however, relatively little sediment is thought to have been deposited along these narrow margins.

The abrupt increase in sediment flux in the earliest Palaeocene, followed by a gradual decrease in the latest part of the Palaeocene and the Eocene, is constrained to the northernmost part of the southwestern Norwegian margin (Fig. 3). This asymmetric sediment dispersal suggests that the driving mechanisms behind this perturbation mainly affected the northern part of southern Norway. The long-lived character, the close association with the angular Base Tertiary unconformity and the temporal overlap with high sediment input from the Shetland Platform has led most workers to attribute this event to regional uplift (Martinsen et al., 1999; Henriksen et al., 2005).

Palaeocene uplift has generally been attributed to two different mechanisms: i) arrival of the Islandic mantle plume and ii) break-up in the North Atlantic (Anell et al., 2009 and references therein). The asymmetry in

(2012) concluded that the offshore sediment volume is much greater than the eroded rock volume between the paleic landscape and the present-day fjord and valley floors, suggesting that the excess sediment must result from Quaternary erosion of the low-relief hinterland. These results contradict previous estimates from Anell et al. (2010) who suggested that Plio–Pleistocene sediment volumes account for only 18–61% of the volume below the paleic surface in southern Norway, and that the entire Oligocene–Miocene volume has to be included to match the volume of the eroded fjords and valleys.

On a more local scale, Anell et al. (2010) compared Cenozoic sediment volumes offshore Sognefjorden to the missing volume beneath the Paleic envelope in the present Sognefjorden catchment. They found that half of the missing volume can be accounted for in offshore strata and that Quaternary ice stream erosion can partly explain the missing volumes. Nonetheless, these findings also led them to suggest that the Paleic surface was an old landform, probably of pre- or Early Cenozoic age.

One possible explanation for these discrepancies relates to the uncertainties associated with both mapping offshore volumes and the onshore areas that should be backfilled. Ice-drainage systems, transport routes and depocentres are known to have changed through the Quaternary. The facies also vary significantly along the margin, leading to a high uncertainty in porosity (15–60% according to Hjelstuen et al. (2012) and references therein). In addition, the true contribution from erosion of Cenozoic and Mesozoic sediments along the margin is unknown. Sømme et al. (2013a) suggested that within the Palaeocene succession alone, 25–60% of the sediments may have been removed above the Base Pleistocene unconformity. For comparison, this amounts to 4–9% (or 2.0–4.8 x 103 km3) of the Pleistocene volume calculated by Anell et al. (2011), suggesting that if the rest of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic is included, the incorporation of reworked pre-Quaternary sediments in these studies might be substantial.

Discussion: Onshore-offshore relation-ships and margin evolution

It is expected that the along-margin distribution of sediment, overall lithology changes and unconformity-bounded stratigraphic units reflect the long-term evolution of drainage catchments and topography. Deposition of sand-rich, shallow-marine and shelfal units along the south Norwegian margin prior to and during Late Jurassic rifting is inferred to reflect relatively high topography (around 1.5 km) onshore southern Norway (Fig. 6; Sømme et al., 2013a). Relatively high relief was probably focused along the main structural elements such as the Inner Boundary Fault System and the Møre–Trøndelag Fault Complex. Late Jurassic


(Nielsen et al., 2009; Gołędowski et al., 2011; Clausen et al., 2012). Since this event has been assigned such great significance along the Norwegian margin, we will discuss the consequences of the event in the light of our volume calculations and sediment prediction model.

The Eocene–Oligocene isotope excursion (~34 Ma) represents a cooling event associated with expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet, and is documented by a decrease in δ18O of ~1.5‰ over a ~400 kyr period (Zachos et al., 2001). In contrast, glacial periods during the last 0.8 Myr are associated with similar or even higher δ18O excursions of 1.5–2.0‰, following pronounced ~100 kyr eccentricity cycles (Zachos et al., 2001). This suggests that the Eocene–Oligocene climate deterioration may have been similar to, or less severe than, what has been inferred for the last glacial periods. In order to speculate on the effect of the Eocene–Oligocene climate deterioration on the sedimentary system, we can therefore use the last glacial periods as a proxy.

Factors controlling the amount of sediment delivered to the offshore basins on 103–105 year time–scales are linked to sediment production and transport, including catchment–relief distribution, the presence of glaciers, sediment storage en-route, vegetation, temperature and precipitation. Thus, despite global cooling during glacial periods, the net effect on sediment delivery to offshore basins is highly variable and is known to differ considerably between regions and climate zones (e.g., Blum & Törnquist, 2000). For example, Blum & Hattier-Womack (2009) estimated that the sediment flux from large (>100,000 km2), but non-glaciated catchments feeding sediment to the Gulf of Mexico during the last glacial maximum were about 25–30% lower than present, mainly due to temperature lowering and catchment merging. In contrast, Covault et al. (2011) calculated contrasting sediment flux values and deep-sea accumulation rates for the last 40 kyr in small (<5000 km2) tectonically active systems in southern

sediment thickness along the margin does not favour any specific model and the northwestern part of the margin would be most susceptible to either of the two mechanisms. In addition, deformation would probably have been focused along older deformation zones, such as the Møre–Trøndelag Fault Complex, rather than causing regional uplift of the entire landmass (Redfield et al., 2005) . However, it is interesting to note that if the 450–500 m of transient uplift that has been attributed to the Islandic plume (Roberts et al., 2009; J. Skogseid, pers. comm., 2014) are added to the estimated Late Cretaceous relief of 0.5 km, this Palaeocene plume-related topography is very close to the suggested ~1.1 km of relief estimated from the offshore sediment wedge (Fig. 6; Sømme et al., 2013a). No matter what the main driving force behind the sediment pulse was, the asymmetric thickness observed in the Palaeocene wedge suggests a semi–local control, such as reactivation of the Møre–Trøndelag Fault Complex, rather than a primary climatic or eustatic control which would have affected the entire margin. However, this is not to say that climatic factors were insignificant.

The sharp and erosive boundary between the generally mud-dominated Eocene progradational succession and the base of the sand-rich Oligocene submarine fan in the Nordfjord–Storfjord area points toward an increased sediment flux and overall coarsening of the material delivered from onshore drainage systems. The amount of sediment present in the two fans is best explained by a relief on the order of 1.6 and 2.3 km in the Nordfjord and Storfjord areas (Fig. 6), which is similar to the present topography within this region. This strongly indicates renewed uplift along this margin. However, the Eocene–Oligocene transition is also known to coincide with climate deterioration (e.g., Zachos et al., 2001; Utescher et al., 2009) and a third-order fall in eustatic sea-level (Miller et al., 2005), and this period of climate change has previously been linked to major changes in lithology and stratigraphic geometry elsewhere in the North Sea

Figure 6. Plot showing the estimated Jurassic to Oligocene relief of the southwestern Norwegian margin based on the ’local catchment reconstruction’ method. The hatched line connects the highest values calculated for each time period. Jurassic, Cretaceous and Palaeocene values are from Sømme et al. (2013a); Oligocene and Eocene values are from this study.


Eidvin, 2005). We thus interpret this period to reflect continued relatively high topography (Gabrielsen et al., 2010), but where the initial sedimentary response to Oligocene tectonic perturbation decreased as the system adjusted.

Differences and discrepancies between the isopach backfilling models of Anell et al. (2010), Dowdeswell et al. (2010), Hjelstuen et al. (2013) and Steer et al. (2012) indicate that this method is hampered by uncertainties which are too large to unequivocally resolve the question about the nature and age of the pre-glacial landscape. If our local catchment reconstructions are correct and most of southern Norway was uplifted close to its present elevation already in the Oligocene, significant (km-scale) Late Neogene tectonic uplift may not be required. However, isostatic rebound due to deep glacial erosion has been estimated to be as high as ~800 m (Steer et al., 2011), causing regional or ’domal’ uplift, which can account for much of the evidence for recent uplift (such as the development of the Base Pleistocene unconformity). If so, this means that at least parts of the paleic landscape would be of pre-Early Oligocene age. Preserved remnants of what has been interpreted as fluvial valleys mapped by Sømme et al. (2009) within this landscape may then, locally, have survived since Palaeocene–Eocene times. This is also in agreement with geomorphological studies of Lidmar-Bergström et al. (2000, 2013), who suggested that the paleic landscape is of post-Cretaceous age. Mid-Miocene (or older) channel features have also been documented to be part of an uplifted summit surface in Corsica, where they presently occur within periglacial conditions at high elevations (Kuhlemann et al., 2005). Similarly, recent studies from Greenland and Antarctica show that old geomorphological landscape elements may be preserved for tens of millions of years in periglacial and/or subglacial environments (Jamieson et al., 2010; Bamber et al., 2013). Nevertheless, having what has been inferred to be remnant channel features preserved at high elevations argues for at least one uplift event, as it is hard to envision these being formed at their present elevations. Thus, the idea that the topography of southern Norway has been as high, or higher, than the present day since the Devonian (Nielsen et al., 2009) is difficult to reconcile with both geomorphological and stratigraphic observations.

In summary, when the volume calculations and relief estimations of Sømme et al. (2013a) are included, several periods of increasing and decreasing topography have dominated the southwestern Norwegian margin (Fig. 6), supporting previous models of long-term landscape evolution (e.g., Gabrielsen et al., 2010 and references therein).

ConclusionsFrom the above review of different studies and

California, and attributed this to a variable efficiency of longshore drift. Lastly, Sømme et al. (2011) estimated an increased sediment flux of 50–60% from a small catchment (~1000 km2) on Corsica during the last glacial period, reflecting increased erosion from mountain glaciers. However, in this last example, this estimated increase was not recognised offshore because climate deterioration (local temperature decrease of 8°C and a regional precipitation decrease of 20–30%; Sømme et al., 2011 and references therein) was accompanied by onshore channel aggradation rather than bypass to the deep-water basin. These examples demonstrate that: i) complicated relationships exists between climate change and sediment flux, ii) global climate deterioration does generally not cause increased sediment production (Syvitski et al., 2003), and iii) current estimates suggest that major δ18O excursions of 1.5–2.0‰ during the last glacial periods were only associated with changes in sediment flux on the order of 20–50%.

Utescher et al. (2009) suggested that the Eocene–Oligocene climate shift was associated with a temperature decrease of 4–5°C, and a precipitation increase of ~20% in northern Germany; values that are comparable to what has been inferred for the last glacial period. Using the Eocene as a base case, the BQART model (Syvitski & Milliman, 2007) predicts that this temperature decrease and precipitation increase would lower the sediment flux by ~40%. This is the opposite of what is observed in the offshore depocentres, where the deposition rate increases by about 100%. In addition, the main Eocene–Oligocene cold spell lasted for only ~400 kyr (Zachos et al., 2001), whereas deposition in the offshore basin lasted several million years, clearly operating on a much longer time scale. Based on these simple estimates, we conclude that although pre-Late Neogene climate shifts are important on relatively short (103–105 years) time scales, and that feedbacks between topography, climate, vegetation and sediment production are complex, the long-term (106 years) controls on sediment flux are related to changes in onshore topography and the size of drainage basins.

A long-term shift in depositional style is also evident from the seismic-reflection data, changing from muddy, Eocene, shelf-slope progradation to Oligocene, and later Miocene, forced-regressive, aggradational to retrogradational, sand-dominated, shelf-slope packages (Fig. 5). This pattern is interpreted to reflect a new style of deposition and not only a sudden climatically or eustatically driven increase in sediment flux. Although no local catchment estimates have been performed on the Miocene–Pliocene succession, regional work by Anell et al. (2010) and Gołędowski et al. (2011) suggests that the overall deposition rate decreased from the Oligocene towards the Pliocene. Even though no specific volumes are available for the northern part of the southwestern Norwegian margin, the seismic-reflection data show that shelf-slope wedges continued to prograde, reflecting overall shallowing of the overfilled basin (Rundberg &


References

Anell, I., Thybo, H. & Artemieva, I.M. 2009: Cenozoic uplift and sub-sidence in the North Atlantic region: Geological evidence revisited. Tectonophysics 474, 78–105.

Anell, I., Thybo, H. & Rasmussen, E. 2011: A synthesis of Cenozoic sedimentation in the North Sea. Basin Research 23, 1–26.

Anell, I., Thybo, H. & Stratford, W. 2010: Relating Cenozoic North Sea sediments to topography in southern Norway: The interplay between tectonics and climate. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 300, 19–32.

Bamber, J.L., Siegert, M.J., Griggs, J.A., Marshall, S. J. & Spada, G. 2013: Paleofluvial mega-canyon beneath the central Greenland ice sheet. Science 341, 997–999.

Berthling, I. & Etzelmüller, B. 2011: The concept of cryo-conditioning in landscape evolution. Quaternary Research 75, 378–384.

Blum, M.D. & Hattier-Womack, J. 2009: Climate change, sea-level change, and fluvial sediment supply to deepwater depositional sys-tems: a review. In Kneller, B.C., McCaffrey, W.D. & Martinsen, O.J (eds.): External Controls on Deepwater Depositional Systems, Soci-ety for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication 93, pp. 15–41.

Blum, M.D. & Törnqvist, T.E. 2000: Fluvial responses to climate and sea-level change: a review and look forward. Sedimentology 47, 2–48.

Bugge, T., Tveiten, B. & Bäckström, S. 2001: The depositional history of the Cretaceous in the northeastern North Sea. In Martinsen, O.J. & Dreyer, T. (eds.): Sedimentary Environments Offshore Norway – Palaeozoic to Recent 10, Proceedings of the Norwegian Petroleum Society Conference, pp. 279–291.

Clausen, O.R., Sliwinska, K.K. & Gołedowski, B. 2012: Oligocene cli-mate changes controlling forced regression in the eastern North Sea. Marine and Petroleum Geology 29, 1–14.

Covault, J.A., Romans, B.W., Graham, S.A., Fildani, A. & Hilley, G.E. 2011: Terrestrial source to deep-sea sink sediment budgets at high and low sea levels: Insights from tectonically active Southern Cali-fornia. Geology 39, 619–622.

Doré, A.G. 1992: Synoptic palaeogeography of the Northeast Atlantic Seaway: late Permian to Cretaceous. In Parnell, J. (ed.): Basins on the Atlantic Seaboard: Petroleum Geology, Sedimentology and Basin Evolution, Geological Society Special Publication 62, pp. 421–446.

Dowdeswell, J.A., Ottesen, D. & Rise, L. 2010: Rates of sediment deli-very from the Fennoscandian Ice Sheet through an ice age. Geology 38, 3–6.

Dreyer, T., Whitaker, M., Dexter, J., Flesche, H. & Larsen, E. 2005: From spit system to tide-dominated delta; integrated reservoir model of the Upper Jurassic Sognefjord Formation on the Troll West Field. In Doré, A.G. & Vining, B.A. (eds.): Petroleum geology: North-West Europe and global perspectives, Proceedings of the 6th petroleum geo-logy conference, Geological Society of London, pp. 423–448.

Ebbing, J. & Olesen, O. 2010: New compilation of top basement and basement thickness for the Norwegian continental shelf reveals the segmentation of the passive margin system. In Vinning, B.A. & Pickering, S.C (eds.): Petroleum Geology: From mature basins to new frontiers. Proceedings of the 7the petroleum geology conference, Geological Society of London, pp. 885–897.

Eide, E.A., Torsvik, T.H., Andersen, T.B. & Arnaud, N.O. 1999: Early carboniferous unroofing in western Norway: A tale of alkali feldspar thermochronology. Journal of Geology 107, 353–374.

Eidvin, T. & Rundberg, Y. 2007: Post-Eocene strata of the southern Viking Graben, northern North Sea; integrated biostratigraphic, strontium isotopic and lithostratigraphic study. Norwegian Journal of Geology 87, 391–450.

Eidvin, T., Rasmussen, R.S., Riis, F. & Rundberg, Y. 2010: Oligocene to Lower Pliocene deposits of the Norwegian continental shelf, with correlation to the Norwegian Sea, Greenland, Svalbard, Denmark

approaches, it is clear that no single method captures the uncertainties and variability associated with linking offshore stratigraphy with long-term onshore topography. However, in the case of the southern Norwegian margin, the offshore stratigraphy holds the best–preserved record of long-term landscape change. Two semi-quantitative methods are applied for landscape reconstruction: regional isopach backfilling and local catchment reconstruction. Both methods are still associated with various types of uncertainty. In summary we find that:

- The benefits of using bulk volume calculations combined with back-filling are that they allow large, margin-scale areas to be studied using relatively low data density. The downside of using this method is the large uncertainty in defining the boundaries of the offshore stratigraphic package of interest, uncertainties in conversion from isochron thickness to deposition rate, and defining the extent of the onshore area and palaeolandscape to be back-filled by sediments.

- The benefits of comparing sediments in point-sourced depocentres with expected sediment flux is that there is much less uncertainty in mapping local packages that can be tied to a specific outlet location, and that the method does not rely on defining palaeolandscape morphology. The downside of this method is that it depends on relatively good age control and preserva-tion of a complete shelf-to-deep-water transect.

The latter method was used to estimate Late Jurassic, Late Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene and Oligocene palaeotopography along different regions of the southwestern Norwegian margin (Fig. 3) using sediment volumes calculated from well–constrained, shallow- and deep-marine depocentres. Relatively high topography dominated in Late Jurassic times, when large amounts of sediment were supplied to the entire margin. During the Cretaceous, the topography was steadily denuded, although the axis and lateral distribution of topography are inferred to have remained similar. The latest Cretaceous–earliest Palaeocene period was dominated by uplift and a shift from deep-water deposition to large-scale, shelf-slope progradation (Fig. 5). This pattern continued during the Eocene, but deposition rates decreased and sediment became finer as the topography decreased and as more sediment was stored on the shelves. Renewed uplift and perturbation of the drainage systems occurred in the earliest Oligocene, causing the shelf-slope wedges to prograde basinward and on top of the Lower Oligocene fan systems (Fig. 5). Although the above estimates must be considered first-order approximations, the results indicate major changes in onshore topography during the Late Mesozoic and Cenozoic and cannot be explained by climatic forcing alone.

Acknowledgements. We thank Roy H. Gabrielsen, Peter Japsen and Erik S. Rasmussen for their constructive reviews and Bart Hendriks for editorial comments.


B.A (eds.): Petroleum geology: North-West Europe and global perspectives, Proceedings of the 6th petroleum geology conference, Geological Society of London, pp. 1185–1198.

Helland-Hansen, W., Ashton, M., Lomo, L. & Steel, R. 1992: Advance and retreat of the Brent Delta; recent contributions to the depositional model. In Morton, A.C., Haszeldine, R.S., Giles, M.R. & Brown, S. (eds.): Geology of the Brent Group, Geological Society of London Special Publications 61, pp. 109–127.

Hendriks, B., Andriessen, P., Huigen, Y., Leighton, C., Redfield, T., Murrell, G., Gallagher, K. & Nielsen, S.B. 2007: A fission track data compilation for Fennoscandia. Norwegian Journal of Geology 87, 143–155.

Henriksen, S., Fichler, C., Grønlie, A., Henningsen, T., Laursen, I., Løseth, H., Ottesen, D. & Prince, I. 2005: The Norwegain Sea during the Cenozoic. In Wandås, B.T.G., Eide, E.A., Gradstein, F. & Nystuen, J.P (eds.): Onshore-Offshore relationships on the North Atlantic Margin, Norwegian Petroleum Society Special Publication 12, pp. 111–133.

Hjelstuen, B.O., Nygård, A., Sejrup, H.P. & Haflidason, H. 2012: Quaternary denudation of southern Fennoscandia – evidence from the marine realm. Boreas 41, 379–390.

Jackson, C.A.L., Barber, G.P. & Martinsen, O.J. 2008: Submarine slope morphology as a control on the development of sand-rich turbidite depositional systems: 3D seismic analysis of the Kyrre Fm (Upper Cretaceous), Maløy Slope, offshore Norway. Marine and Petroleum Geology 25, 663–680.

Jamieson, S.S.R., Sugden, D.E. & Hulton, N.R.J. 2010: The evolution of the subglacial landscape of Antarctica. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 293, 1–27.

Japsen, P. 1998: Regional velocity-depth anomalies, North Sea Chalk: a record of overpressure and Neogene uplift and erosion. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin 82, 2031–2074.

Japsen, P. & Chalmers, J.A. 2000: Neogene uplift and tectonics around the North Atlantic: overview. Global and Planetary Change 24, 165–173.

Japsen, P., Green, P.F., Nielsen, L.H., Rasmussen, E.S. & Bidstrup, T. 2007: Mesozoic–Cenozoic exhumation events in the eastern North Sea Basin: a multi-disciplinary study based on palaeothermal, palaeoburial, stratigraphic and seismic data. Basin Research 19, 451–490.

Japsen, P., Green, P.F., Bonow, J.M., Rasmussen, E.S., Chalmers, J.A. & Kjennerud, T. 2010: Episodic uplift and exhumation along North Atlantic passive margins: implications for hydrocarbon prospectivity. In Doré, A.G. & Vining, B.A (eds.): Petroleum geology: North-West Europe and global perspectives, Proceedings of the 6th petroleum geology conference, Geological Society of London, pp. 979–1004.

Jordt, H., Thyberg, B.I. & Nøttvedt, A. 2000: Cenozoic evolution of the central and northern North Sea with focus on differential vertical movements of the basin floor and surrounding clastic source areas. In Nøttvedt, A. & Larsen, B.T (eds.): Dynamics of the Norwegian margin: Geological Society of London Special Publications 167, pp. 219–243.

Knox, R., Bosch, A., Rasmussen, E.S., Heilmann-Clausen, C., Hiss, M., Lugt, I., Kasiński, J., King, C., Köthe, A., Słodkowska, B., Standke, B. & Vandenberghe, N. 2010: Cenozoic. In Doornenbal, H. & Stevenson, A (eds.): Petroleum Geological Atlas of the Southern Permian Basin area, pp. 211–220.

Knudsen, C., Frei, D., Rasmussen, T., Rasmussen, E.R. & Mclimans, R. 2005: New methods in provenance studies based on heavy minerals: an example from Miocene sands in Jylland, Denmark. Geological Society of Denmark and Greenland 7, 29–32.

Knudsen, T.L. & Fossen, H. 2001: The Late Jurassic Bjorøy Formation: A provenance indicator for offshore sediments derived from SW Norway as based on single zircon (SIMS) data. Norwegian Journal of Geology 81, 283–292.

Ksíenzyk, A.K. 2012: From mountains to basins: geochronological case studies from southwestern Norway, Western Australia and East Antarctica, PhD thesis, University of Bergen, 162 pp.

and their relation to the uplift of Fennoscandia. Abstracts, Interna-tional Geological Congress, 6–14 August, Oslo, Norway.

Etzelmüller, B., Romstad, B. & Fjellanger, J. 2007: Automatic regional classification of topography in Norway. Norwegian Journal of Geology 87, 167–180.

Faleide, J.I., Kyrkjebø, R., Kjennerud, T., Gabrielsen, R.H., Jordt, H.S., F. & Bjerke, M. 2002: Tectonic impact on sedimentary processes during Cenozoic evolution of the northern North Sea and surrounding areas. In Doré, A.G., Cartwright, J.A., Stoker, M.S., Turner, J.P. & White, N. (eds.): Exhumation of the North Atlantic Margin: Timing, Mechanisms, and Implications for Petroleum Exploration, Geological Society of London Special Publication 196, pp. 235–269.

Folkestad, A., Veselovsky, Z. & Roberts, P. 2011: Utilising borehole image logs to interpret delta to estuarine system: A case study of the subsurface Lower Jurassic Cook Formation in the Norwegian northern North Sea. Marine and Petroleum Geology 29, 255–275.

Fonneland, H.C., Lien, T., Martinsen, O.J., Pedersen, R.B. & Kosler, J. 2004: Detrital zircon ages: a key to understanding the deposition of deep marine sandstones in the Norwegian Sea. Sedimentary Geology 164, 147–159.

Fossen, H. 2010: Extensional tectonics in the North Atlantic Caledonides: a regional view. In Law, R.D., Butler, R.W.H., Holdworth, R.E., Krabbendam, M. & Strachan, R.A (eds.): Continental tectonics and mountain building: the legacy of Peach and Horne, Geological Society of London Special Publications 335, pp. 767–793.

Fugelli, E.M.G. & Olsen, T.R. 2005: Screening for deep-marine reservoirs in frontier basins: Part 1 – Examples from offshore mid-Norway. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin 89, 853–882.

Gabrielsen, R.H., Braathen, A., Olesen, A., Faleide, J.I., Kyrkjebø, R. & Redfield, T.F. 2005: Vertical movements in south-western Fennoscandia: a discussion of region and processes from the present to the Devonian. In Wandås, B.T.G., Eide, E.A., Gradstein, F. & Nystuen, J.P (eds.): Onshore-Offshore relationships on the North Atlantic Margin, Norwegian Petroleum Society Special Publication 12, pp. 1–28.

Gabrielsen, R.H., Faleide, J.I., Pascal, C., Braathen, A., Nystuen, J.P., Etzelmuller, B. & O’Donnell, S. 2010: Latest Caledonian to Present tectonomorphological development of southern Norway. Marine and Petroleum Geology 27, 709–723.

Gabrielsen, R.H., Kyrkjebø, R., Faleide, J.I., Fjeldskaar, W. & Kjennerud, T. 2001: The Cretaceous post-rift basin configuration of the northern North Sea. Petroleum Geoscience 7, 137–154.

Gjelberg, J.G., Dreyer, T., Høie, A., Tjelland, T. & Lilleng, T. 1987: Late Triassic to Mid-Jurassic sandbody development on the Barents and Mid-Norwegian shelf. In Brooks, J. & Glennie, K. (eds.): Petroleum Geology of North West Europe, Graham & Trotman, pp. 1105–1129.

Gjessing, J. 1967: Norway’s Paleic surface. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 21, 69–132.

Gołędowski, B., Nielsen, S.B. & Clausen, O.R. 2011: Patterns of Cenozoic sediment flux from western Scandinavia. Basin Research 23, 1–24.

Hadler-Jacobsen, F., Johannessen, E.P., Ashton, N., Henriksen, S., Johnson, S.D. & Kristensen, J.B. 2005: Submarine fan morphology and lithology distribution: a predictable function of sediment delivery, gross shelf-to-basin relief, slope gradient and basin topography. In Doré, A.G. & Vining, B.A (eds.): Petroleum geology: North-West Europe and global perspectives, Proceedings of the 6th petroleum geology conference, Geological Society of London, pp. 1121–1145.

Hamar, G.P., Fjaeran, T. & Hesjedal, A. 1983: Jurassic stratigraphy and tectonics of the south-southeastern Norwegian offshore. Geologie En Mijnbouw 62, 103–114.

Hamberg, L., Dam, G., Wilhelmson, C. & Ottesen, T.G. 2005: Paleocene deep-marine sandstone plays in the Siri Canyon, offshore Denmark–southern Norway. In Doré, A.G. & Vining,


sediments in Germany – indicators of rapid uplift of Caledonian rocks in southern Norway. Norwegian Journal of Geology 89, 193–202.

Rasmussen, E.S. 2004: The interplay between true eustatic sea-level changes, tectonics, and climatic changes: what is the dominating factor in sequence formation of the Upper Oligocene–Miocene succession in the eastern North Sea Basin, Denmark?. Global and Planetary Change 41, 15–30.

Rasmussen, E.S., Heilmann-Clausen, C., Waagstein, R. & Eidvin, T. 2008: The Tertiary of Norden. Episodes 31, 66–72.

Rasmussen, E.S. & Dybkjær, K. 2013: Patterns of Cenozoic sediment flux from western Scandinavia: discussion. Basin Research 25, 1–9.

Redfield, T.F., Braathen, A., Gabrielsen, R.H., Osmundsen, P.T., Torsvik, T.H. & Andriessen, P.A.M. 2005: Late mesozoic to early Cenozoic components of vertical separation across the Møre–Trøndelag Fault Complex, Norway. Tectonophysics 395, 233–249.

Reusch, H. 1901: Nogle bidrag till forstaaelsen af hvorledes Norges dale og fjelde er blevne til. Norges Geologiske Undersøgelse 32, 124–263.

Riis, F. 1996: Quantification of Cenozoic vertical movements of Scandinavia by correlation of morphological surfaces with offshore data. Global and Planetary Change 12, 331–357.

Roberts, A.M., Corfield, R.I., Kusznir, N.J., Matthews, S.J., Hansen, E.K. & Hooper, R.J. 2009: Mapping palaeostructure and palaeobathymetry along the Norwegian Atlantic continental margin: Møre and Vøring basins. Petroleum Geoscience 15, 27–43.

Rundberg, Y. & Eidvin, T. 2005: Controls on depositional history and architecture of the Oligocene–Miocene succession, northern North Sea Basin. In Wandås, B.T.G., Eide, E.A., Gradstein, F. & Nystuen, J.P. (eds.): Onshore-Offshore relationships on the North Atlantic Margin, Norwegian Petroleum Society Special Publication 12, pp. 207–239.

Sadler, P.M. & Strauss, D.J. 1990: Estimation of Completeness of Stratigraphical Sections Using Empirical-Data and Theoretical-Models. Journal of the Geological Society 147, 471–485.

Schumer, R. & Jerolmack, D.J. 2009: Real and apparent changes in sediment deposition rates through time. Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface 114.

Skibeli, M., Barnes, K., Straume, T., Syvertsen, S.E. & Shanmugam, G. 1995: A sequence stratigraphic study of Lower Cretaceous deposits in the northernmost North Sea. In Steel, R., Felt, V.L., Johannesen, E.P. & Mathieu, C. (eds.): Sequence Stratigraphy on the Northwest European Margin 5, pp. 389–400.

Smelror, M., Dehls, J., Ebbing, J., Larsen, E., Lundin, E.R., Nordgulen, Ø., Osmundsen, P.T., Olesen, O., Ottesen, D., Pascal, C., Redfield, T.F. & Rise, L. 2007: Towards a 4D topographic view of the Norwegian Sea margin. Global and Planetary Change 58, 382–410.

Sneider, J.S., de Clarens, P. & Vail, P.R. 1995: Sequence stratigraphy of the Middle to Upper Jurassic, Viking Graben, North Sea. In Steel, R., Felt, V.L., Johannesen, E.P. & Mathieu, C. (eds.): Sequence Stratigraphy on the Northwest European Margin 5, pp. 167–197.

Steer, P., Huismans, R., Gac, S. & Herman, F. 2011: Fjord erosion, Quaternary sedimentation and isostatic rebound in western Scandinavia. AGU Fall meeting, 5–9 December, San Francisco, California, USA.

Steer, P., Huismans, R., Valla, P.G., Gac, S. & Herman, F. 2012: Bimodal Plio–Quaternary glacial erosion of fjords and low-relief surfaces in Scandinavia. Nature Geoscience 5, 635–639.

Strøm, K.M. 1948: The Geomorphology of Norway. The Geographical Journal 112, 19–23.

Strømsøe, J.R. & Paasche, Ø. 2011: Weathering patterns in high-latitude regolith: Journal of Geophysical Research, Earth Surface 116, doi:10.1029/2010JF001954.

Surlyk, F., Dones, T., Clausen, K.C. & Higham, J. 2003: Upper Cretaceous. In Evans, D., Graham, C., Armour, A. & Bathurst, P (eds.): The Millennium Atlas: Petroleum geology of the central and northern North Sea, The Geological Society of London, pp. 213–233.

Svenningsen, L., Balling, N., Jacobsen, B.H., Kind, R., Wylegalla, K. & Schweitzer, J. 2007: Crustal root beneath the highlands of southern Norway resolved by teleseismic receiver functions. Geophysical

Kuhlemann, J., Székely, B., Frisch, W., Danišík, M., Dunkl, I., Molnár, G. & Timár, G. 2005: DEM analysis of mountainous relief in a crystalline basement block: Cenozoic relief generations in Corsica (France). Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 49, 1–21.

Kuhlmann, G., de Boer, P.L., Pedersen, R.B. & Wong, T.E. 2004: Provenance of Pliocene sediments and paleoenvironmental changes in the southern North Sea region using Samarium–Neodymium (Sm/Nd) provenance ages and clay mineralogy. Sedimentary Geology 171, 205–226.

Lidmar-Bergström, K., Ollier, C.D. & Sulebak, J.R. 2000: Landforms and uplift history of southern Norway. Global and Planetary Change 24, 211–231.

Lidmar-Bergström, K., Bonow, J.M. & Japsen, P. 2013: Stratigraphic Landscape Analysis and geomorphological paradigms: Scandinavia as an example of Phanerozoic uplift and subsidence. Global and Planetary Change 100, 153–171.

Liu, X., Galloway, W.E., Garber, J.L. & Sloan, B.J. 1997: Quantitative determination of Tertiary sediment supply to the North Sea Basin. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin 81, 1482–1509.

Martinsen, O.J., Boen, F., Charnock, M.A., Mangerud, G. & Nøttvedt, A. 1999: Cenozoic development of the Norwegian margin 60–64 degrees N; sequences and sedimentary response to variable basin physiography and tectonic setting. In Fleet, A.J., Boldy, S.A.R. & Burley, S.D (eds.): Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 5th Conference, Geological Society of London 5, pp. 293–304.

Martinsen, O.J., Lien, T. & Jackson, C.A.L. 2005: Cretaceous and Palaeogene turbidite systems in the North Sea and Norwegian Sea Basins: source, staging area and basin physiography controls on reservoir development. In Doré, A.G. & Vining, B.A (eds.): Petroleum geology: North-West Europe and global perspectives, Proceedings of the 6th petroleum geology conference, Geological Society of London, pp. 1147–1164.

Miller, K.G., Kominz, M.A., Browning, J.V., Wright, J.D., Mountain, G.S., Katz, M.E., Sugarman, P.J., Cramer, B.S., Christie-Blick, N. & Pekar, S.F. 2005: The Phanerozoic record of global sea-level change. Science 310, 1293–1298.

Morton, A.C. 1992: Provenance of Brent Group sandstones: heavy mineral constraints. In Morton, A.C., Hasszeldine, R.S., Giles, M.R. & Brown, S. (eds.): Geology of the Brent Group, Geological Society of London Special Publications 61, pp. 227–244.

Morton, A.C. & Chenery, S. 2009: Detrital rutile geochemistry and thermometry as guides to provenance of Jurassic–Paleocene sandstones of the Norwegian Sea. Journal of Sedimentary Research 79, 540–553.

Morton, A.C., Whitham, A.G. & Fanning, C M. 2005: Provenance of Late Cretaceous to Paleocene submarine fan sandstones in the Norwegian Sea: Integration of heavy mineral, mineral chemical and zircon age data. Sedimentary Geology 182, 3–28.

Mosar, J. 2003: Scandinavia’s North Atlantic passive margin. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth108, B8, doi:10.1029/ 2002JB002134.

Mørk, M.B.E. & Johnsen, S.O. 2005: Jurassic sandstone provenance and basement erosion in the Møre margin – Froan Basin area. Geological Survey of Norway Bulletin 443, 5–18.

Nielsen, S.B., Gallagher, K., Leighton, C., Balling, N., Svenningsen, L., Jacobsen, B.H., Thomsen, E., Nielsen, O.B., Heilmann-Clausen, C., Egholm, D.L., Summerfield, M.A., Clausen, O.R., Piotrowski, J.A., Thorsen, M.R., Huuse, M., Abrahamsen, N., King, C. & Lykke-Andersen, H. 2009: The evolution of western Scandinavian topography: A review of Neogene uplift versus the ICE (isostasy-climate-erosion) hypothesis. Journal of Geodynamics 47, 72–95.

Olivarius, M., Rasmussen, E., Siersma, V., Knudsen, C., Kokfelt, T. & Keulen, N. 2014: Provenance signal variations caused by facies and tectonics: Zircon age and heavy mineral evidence from Miocene sand in the north-eastern North Sea Basin. Marine and Petroleum Geology 49, 1–14.

Paul, J., Wemmer, K. & Wetzel, F. 2009: Keuper (Late Triassic)


Journal International 170, 1129–1138.Syvitski, J.P.M. & Milliman, J.D. 2007: Geology, geography, and

humans battle for dominance over the delivery of fluvial sediment to the coastal ocean. Journal of Geology 115, 1–19.

Syvitski, J.P.M., Peckham, S.D., Hilberman, R. & Mulder, T. 2003: Predict ing the terrestrial flux of sediment to the global ocean: a planetary perspective. Sedimentary Geology 162, 5–24.

Sømme, T.O. & Jackson, C.A.L. 2013: Source-to-sink analysis of anci-ent sedimentary systems using a subsurface case study from the Møre–Trøndelag area of southern Norway: Part 2 – sediment dis-persal and forcing mechanisms. Basin Research 25, 512–531.

Sømme, T.O., Martinsen, O.J. & Thurmond, J. B. 2009: Reconstructing morphological and depositional characteristics in subsurface sedimentary systems: An example from the Maastrichtian–Danian Ormen Lange system, Møre Basin, Norwegian Sea. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin 93, 1347–1377.

Sømme, T.O., Piper, D.J.W., Deptuck, M.E. & Helland-Hansen, W. 2011: Linking onshore-offshore sediment dispersal in the Golo source-to-sink system (Corsica, France) during the late Quaternary. Journal of Sedimentary Research 81, 118–137.

Sømme, T.O., Martinsen, O.J. & Lunt, I. 2013a: Linking offshore stratigraphy to onshore paleotopography: The Late Jurassic–Paleocene evolution of the south Norwegian margin. Geological Society of America Bulletin 125, 1164–1186.

Sømme, T.O., Jackson, C.A.L. & Vaksdal, M. 2013b: Source-to-sink analysis of ancient sedimentary systems using a subsurface case study from the Møre–Trøndelag area of southern Norway: Part 1 – depositional setting and fan evolution. Basin Research 25, 489–511.

Torske, T. 1972: Tertiary oblique uplift of Western Fennoscandia; crustal warping in connection with rifting and break-up of the Laurasian continent. Norges Geologiske Undersøkelse 273, 43–48.

Utescher, T., Mosbrugger, V., Ivanov, D. & Dilcher, D. 2009: Present-day climatic equivalents of European Cenozoic climates. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 284, 544–552.

Vergara, L., Wreglesworth, I., Trayfoot, M. & Richardsen, G. 2001: The distribution of Cretaceous and Paleocene deep-water reservoirs in the Norwegian Sea basins. Petroleum Geoscience 7, 395–408.

Wien, S.T. & Kjennerud, T. 2005: 3D Cretaceous to Cenozoic palaeobathymetry of the northern North Sea. In Wandås, B.T.G., Eide, E.A., Gradstein, F. & Nystuen, J.P (eds.): Onshore-Offshore relationships on the North Atlantic Margin, Norwegian Petroleum Society Special Publication, 12, pp. 241–253.

Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L., Thomas, M. & Billups, K. 2001: Trends, rhythms, and abberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686–693.

Ziegler, P.A. 1990: Geological atlas of western and central Europe. Geological Society Publishing House, Bath, 239 pp.

quantitative aspects of stratigraphic onshore- offshore ...€¦ · sømme, t.o., helland-hansen,...

Documents