ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Coniacian–Campanian Latium–Abruzzi carbonate platform,an example of a facies mosaic

Marco Brandano • Marco Loche

Received: 7 August 2013 / Accepted: 13 December 2013 / Published online: 4 January 2014

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract This paper presents the results of a high-reso-

lution analysis of Upper Cretaceous shallow-water lime-

stones in the northeast sector of the Lepini Mountains

(Central Apennines, Italy) that belong to the Latium–Ab-

ruzzi platform domain. The studied succession is entirely

referred to as the ‘‘Accordiella conica & Rotorbinella

scarsellai Biozone’’. The analyzed Coniacian–Campanian

succession is primarily characterized by three lithofacies

associations (LF-A, LF-B, LF-C) deposited on an open

shelf. The intertidal and shallow-subtidal environments are

characterized by mudstone to wackestone and laminated

bindstone (LF-C), whereas in the low to moderate energy

environments of the inner shelf there developed rudist

biostrome (rudist pillarstone) and rudist rudstone to float-

stone (LF-A). A lithofacies association dominated by

cross-bedded grainstone (LF-B) represents the reworking

of bioclastic grains (rudist fragments) derived from the

areas of the shelf colonized by rudist biostrome; lime-sand

shoals related to storm channels passed into submarine

dunes in an open-shelf setting. Correlation of the five

investigated stratigraphic sections shows how the recog-

nized LF are laterally associated to form a facies mosaic

over a few hundred meters. The stratigraphic architecture

shows five intervals (I–V) each of which is dominated by

one or two LF. Interval I is intensely dolomitized. The

following intervals (II and III) record a gradual increase in

hydrodynamic energy as evidenced by the presence of

rudist biostromes passing upward into cross-bedded

grainstone. An increase in mud-supported textures in the

interval IV suggests more restricted conditions, which were

terminated by a period of emergence. More open-marine

conditions in the final interval (V) are shown by the

dominance of LF-A and LF-B.

Keywords Coniacian–Campanian � Apennines �Open shelf � Rudist � Facies mosaic

Introduction

Carbonate platforms are characterized by many carbonate

factories related to different environmental factors existing

across the platform (Wright and Burgess 2005). The con-

cept of facies mosaic has been used to understand the

complexity of a platform’s sediment composition (Wright

and Burgess 2005; Strasser and Vedrine 2009; Pomar and

Hallock 2008). As demonstrated by Strasser and Vedrine

(2009), many carbonate environments are unstable, e.g.,

mud-banks and sand shoals shift laterally due to tidal and

long-shore currents and, as a consequence, these currents

also modify adjacent environments. Storm waves and

storm-induced currents lead to abrupt changes in facies by

redistributing sediment. Considering the complexity of

modern carbonate platforms, it must be expected that the

sedimentary record of such depositional systems is equally

complex.

This paper describes facies mosaics from a rudist-

dominated carbonate platform from the Coniacian–Camp-

anian interval that widely crops out in the Central and

Southern Apennines (Civitelli and Mariotti 1975; Accordi

and Carbone 1988; Carannante et al. 1993, 2000; Stossel

and Bernoulli 2000; Simone et al. 2003; Ruberti et al.

M. Brandano (&) � M. Loche

Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, La Sapienza Universita di

Roma, P. Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

e-mail: marco.brandano@uniroma1.it

M. Brandano

Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria (IGAG) CNR,

Via Salaria km 29, 300, 00016 Monterotondo, Rome, Italy

123

Facies (2014) 60:489–500

DOI 10.1007/s10347-013-0393-x

2006). The Coniacian–Campanian shallow-water carbon-

ates of the Apennines were deposited on open shelves

where the skeletal assemblages of the main carbonate

factory are made up of rudists and foraminifera that pro-

duced loose, bioclastic debris reworked by storm- and

wind-induced currents and waves (Simone et al. 2003;

Ruberti et al. 2006).

Many studies of Cretaceous platforms concentrate on

the description of biofacies and lithofacies, production of

depositional models and on the identification of high-res-

olution depositional cycles (e.g., parasequences, simple

sequences) (Borgomano 2000; Johnson et al. 2002; Simone

et al. 2003; Pomar et al. 2005; Ruberti et al. 2006). Less

attention has been given to the scale and extent of facies

associations characterizing these Cretaceous platforms.

The Latium–Abruzzi platform is a large ([100 km wide)

platform. The extent of the investigated outcrops permits

observations of lateral changes in facies over a few hun-

dred meters. Wright and Burgess (2005) pointed that many

descriptions and interpretations of ancient outcrop strata

assume a layer cake architecture instead of considering

facies mosaics. Strasser and Vedrine (2009) underlined the

discrepancy of the resolution of facies detail and interpre-

tations between ancient and modern depositional environ-

ment. The aim of this paper is to report the results of a

detailed analysis in order to propose a depositional model

for the investigated deposits, to identify the building blocks

of the succession, and to analyze their vertical evolution

and response to sea-level changes. In this paper, the focus

is on the western sector of the Latium–Abruzzi platform,

one of the central Apennine platforms, where complex,

gradual lateral and vertical facies changes are recorded,

which can be interpreted using the facies mosaic concept.

This study provides an example of the application of the

concept of facies mosaic on a rudist-dominated carbonate

platform where this concept appears more relevant to

explain the stacking of individual lithofacies and platform

facies distribution.

Geological setting

The study area is located in the Lepini Mountains that form

the western side of the central Apennines (Fig. 1). This

structure represents the accretionary wedge developed

along the subduction hinge of the Adria continental plate

and the Ionian oceanic plate (Paleo-Ionian oceanic corri-

dor) (Gueguen et al. 1998; Carminati et al. 2007, 2010).

Two main platform successions crop out in the central

Apennines (Bernoulli 2001; Parotto and Praturlon 2004 and

references therein): the Latium–Abruzzi Platform in the

west and the Apulia Platform in the east. They are sepa-

rated by a narrow basinal corridor in the Monte Genzana

area. The Latium–Abruzzi Platform consists of a thick,

Fig. 1 a Simplified geological map of central Italy showing the location of the Apennines platforms (modified from Eberli et al. 1993).

b Location of investigated stratigraphic sections in the Lepini Mountains

490 Facies (2014) 60:489–500

123

discontinuous succession of about 5,000 m of limestone

and subordinate dolomite of Late Triassic to Late Miocene

age. During the Early Cretaceous, the Latium–Abruzzi

Platform was characterized by spreading of peritidal facies

and frequent emergence episodes testified by charophyte-

rich levels and paleokarst features, culminating with the

deposition of bauxites during the late Albian-Cenomanian

(Parotto and Praturlon 2004). During the Late Cretaceous,

a large open shelf developed during the Coniacian–

Campanian interval with rudist facies occurring mainly in

the northern sector of the platform (M. Carseolani and M.

Lepini) (Mariotti 1982; Chiocchini et al. 1994; Chiocchini

and Mancinelli 2001). The uppermost Cretaceous interval

(late Campanian and Maastrichtian) is recorded only in the

marginal area and in the slope sector, where it is repre-

sented by Orbitoides pack-grainstone (Chiocchini and

Mancinelli 2001). A Late Cretaceous-Paleogene hiatus is

physically expressed by a paraconformity recognizable

within the carbonate platform domains. Above this strati-

graphic discontinuity, Lower and/or Middle Miocene car-

bonates directly overlie Cretaceous limestone (Civitelli and

Brandano 2005).

Biostratigraphy of Coniacian–Campanian interval

The studied carbonate platform succession is assigned to

the ‘‘Accordiella conica & Rotorbinella scarsellai Bioz-

one’’ of Chiocchini and Mancinelli (1978) and Chiocchini

et al. (1994, 2008) (Fig. 2). This biozone covers a time-

interval ranging between the Early Coniacian and Early

Campanian, according to the stratigraphic distribution of

the same taxa recognized in the southern Campanian

Cretaceous limestones of Apennine platforms (cf. Sgrosso

1968; Carannante et al. 2000; Simone et al. 2003; Cestari

and Pons 2004), including, in its middle portion, a bio-

horizon bearing Keramosphaerina tergestina, ascribed by

Molinari-Paganelli and Tilia-Zuccari (1987) to an interval

not older than Coniacian–Campanian. Furthermore, the

recognized faunal associations compare well with those

described by Checconi et al. (2008) in Puglia (southern

Italy). In view of the broad time interval of the biozone, it

was crucial to assign a more precise age to the studied

deposits. The first occurrence of Keramosphaerina ter-

gestina takes place in the middle part of investigated

sections C and E (Fig. 3), associated with Murgella lata

and Scandonea samnitica, suggesting a Coniacian–

Campanian age (Tesovic et al. 2001) for this part of the

section.

Materials and methods

Good outcrop exposure on the southwestern slope of Monte

delle Castagne (Lepini Mountains) enabled the measure-

ment of five stratigraphic sections (A–E), which were

correlated in order to interpret vertical and lateral facies

associations roughly oriented along the depositional dip

direction of the Upper Cretaceous Latium–Abruzzi plat-

form (Figs. 1, 3). Sedimentary structures were distin-

guished with line-drawings on photographs to enable the

characterization of the geometries of depositional bodies

and interpretation of the different hydrodynamic regimes in

each depositional environment.

These observations were complemented by petrographic

examination of 60 thin-sections to characterize rock tex-

tures and identify skeletal components. The textural clas-

sifications of Dunham (1962), modified by Embry and

Klovan (1971) and Insalaco (1998) were used.

Results

Lithofacies associations

Lithofacies definition was based on rock textures, skeletal

components, bedding and geometric relationships and three

were recognized: LF-A, -B, and -C.

LF-A: rudist pillarstone and rudist rudstone to floatstone

laterally passing into wackestone to packstone

Rudist pillarstone forms biostromes up to 0.5 m thick and

several meter wide (Figs. 4, 5), which do not show evi-

dence of morphological relief. The matrix comprises wa-

ckestone to fine-packstone with small benthic foraminifera.

Most of the rudists are of elevator morphotype (Skelton

1978; Skelton and Gili 1991; Gili et al. 1995). Locally,

during their early growth, rudist shells were oriented par-

allel to bedding and an upward curvature of shells was

observed in their final growth position. Rudists also occur

throughout the sediment. Rudist pillarstone is characterized

by species belonging to the Durania, Radiolites, Sauva-

gesia, Gorjanovicia, and Biradiolites genera, which usually

Fig. 2 Biostratigraphic scheme and chronostratigraphic references

for the investigated interval of the Apennine carbonate platform

succession (after Chiocchini et al. 2008)

Facies (2014) 60:489–500 491

123

form oligo- or monospecific assemblages. Rudist floatstone

to rudstone is characterized by toppled and/or iso-oriented

rudist shells lacking the upper valve. The matrix is com-

posed of fine packstone to wackestone with small benthic

foraminifera (Fig. 6a). The coarse sandy matrix consists of

skeletal fragments, with a large proportion derived from

bioerosion and mechanical breakdown of rudist shells. LF-

A is organized into 0.2–1-m-thick beds, which locally

extend laterally for tens of meters. The density of rudist

assemblages varies laterally, showing transitions from ru-

dist rudstone to rudist floatstone. The lateral evolution of

this lithofacies association is related to the presence of

rudist biostromes (rudist pillarstone). There is a decrease in

shell debris abundance with increasing distance from the

bioherm. Rudist floatstone passes laterally into wacke-

stone/packstone lithofacies showing planar to low-angle

cross-lamination (HCS) and millimetric-thick layers of

rudist bioclasts (Fig. 6b).

Fig. 3 Architectural reconstruction of the investigated succession

obtained by the correlation of five measured stratigraphic sections.

The correlation panel illustrates the lateral and vertical lithofacies

associations. Cycles 10 and 12 show the lateral relationships between

lithofacies associations produced by a facies mosaic deposited in

environments ranging from intertidal (LF-C) to subtidal (LF-A and

LF-B)

492 Facies (2014) 60:489–500

123

The microfauna of LF-A is characterized by the abun-

dance of small and thin subspherical-shaped Nubeculariidae

and porcellaneous foraminifera (predominantly Miliolidae).

Subordinate microfauna include large-sized discoidal ben-

thic foraminifera (Dicyclina sp., Dicyclina schlumbergeri),

simple porcellaneous forms, Moncharmontia apenninica

and other agglutinated foraminifera, green-algal fragments,

thin-shelled ostracods, textulariids, and rare thaumatopo-

rellaceans (Fig. 4c).

Interpretation: LF-A formed in low-to-moderate hydro-

dynamic energy conditions in an inner-shelf setting (Simone

et al. 2003). This facies association suggests deposition on a

Fig. 4 a Keramosphaerina tergestina; b Scandonea sannitica; c Dicyclina sp. and Thamatoporella parvovesiculifera; d Accordiella conica

Facies (2014) 60:489–500 493

123

rudist-inhabited sandy seafloor, where the bulk of carbonate

sediment was derived from the fragmentation of rudist shells

(Carannante et al. 2000, 2003; Simone et al. 2003; Ruberti

et al. 2006). During storm events, biostromes were partially

reworked and rapidly buried by sediments such that some

rudist shells remained well preserved as they became pro-

tected from wave action (Carannante et al. 1997; Simone

et al. 2003). Rudist floatstone and rudstone appear to be

condensed layers of rudist shells created by the winnowing

of matrix sediment by bottom currents that resulted in the

toppling and dense stacking of shells (cf. Kidwell and Hol-

land 1991; Skelton et al. 1995).

The textural characteristics of LF-A suggest moderate

transport and reworking in a moderate-energy environ-

ment. Much of this reworking is attributed to storm events

that produced HCS from combined flows involving the

action of both waves and currents.

The microfauna characterizing this lithofacies associa-

tion is typical of well-lit depositional environments, open-

water circulation, and normal salinity with moderate

hydrodynamic energy as indicated by the test thickness of

foraminifer specimens (e.g., Hallock 1979, 1983).

LF-B: cross-bedded grainstone to packstone with scattered

rudist pillarstone and floatstone

Cross-bedded grainstone to packstone beds occur in

0.2–0.5-m-thick, first-order sets. The sets form cosets

(second order) up to 3 m thick that can be laterally traced

for tens of meters. Lamination in first-order sets is char-

acterized by concordant and tangential bedding-plane

geometries and dips between 5� and 10�, generally towards

the north. The grainstone is mostly composed of rudist and

echinoid fragments and porcellaneous foraminifera and

rotaliids (Rotorbinella scarsellai, Rotorbinella campaniola,

Rotorbinella sp.). Intergranular pore-space is filled with

sparry calcite cement, which is often replaced by dolomite.

Components of the packstone include agglutinanted, soritid

foraminifers (Scandonea samnitica, Murgella lata), large

lituolids, porcellaneous foraminifers (predominantly com-

plex big and thick-shelled Miliolidae) and subspherical-to-

cylindrical thaumatoporellacean algae.

Cross-bedded grainstone may be laterally associated

with small rudist pillarstone forming beds up to 0.2 m

thick. Rudists show mainly clinger and elevator

Fig. 5 Rudist pillarstone and rudstone to floatstone of LF-A. Note the

rudist floatstone to rudstone lithofacies in the lower bed, where rudists

are considered a relic of an earlier phase of colonization which was

possibly destroyed by a high-energy event. In the upper bed, rudist

pillarstone does not show evidence of morphological relief, with

rudists mainly of elevator morphotype

494 Facies (2014) 60:489–500

123

morphotypes, organized in small bouquets. Rudist pillar-

stone may pass laterally into rudist floatstone (Fig. 6a).

These layers are usually sheet-like and laterally discon-

tinuous. Wavy- to cross-lamination, passing into hum-

mocky cross-stratification is common and is associated

with normal grading (Fig. 6a–c).

Interpretation: Cross-bedded grainstone is interpreted

as the result of the reworking of the bioclastic sands

previously colonized by rudist biostromes. The mobili-

zation of sediment took place in response to storm or

wave currents that promoted the development of migrat-

ing sand-dunes (Simone et al. 2003). These bioclastic

sediments may have become the substrate for new rudist

biostromes (rudist pillarstone) that contributed to the

formation of bioclastic beds (rudist floatstone to

rudstone).

The microfauna characterizing LF-B suggest open-water

circulation and medium–high hydrodynamic energy, as

evidenced by thicker shells and ovoidal-to-subspherical

shapes of rotaliids. The abundance of rudist fragments

(mostly radiolitid shell fragments) indicates the presence of

a rudist-inhabited sandy seafloor, where large rotaliids

were prolific producers of the sand-grade sediment (Car-

annante et al. 2000).

Fig. 6 a Discontinuous and sheet-like rudist floatstone of LF-B.

b Wavy- to cross-lamination evolving into hummocky cross-stratifi-

cation characteristic of LF-B. c LF-B vertical association showing

rudist floatstone passing upward into bioclastic packstone followed by

cross-bedded grainstone at the top

Facies (2014) 60:489–500 495

123

LF-C: mudstone to wackestone and laminated bindstone

LFC lithofacies predominantly is made up of peloids and

micrite matrix with scattered dolomite rhombohedra

(Fig. 7e). The most common skeletal grains are Baci-

nella, small-sized miliolids and thin-shelled ostracods.

Rare benthic agglutinated foraminifers (Cuneolina sp.,

textulariids) and recrystallized gastropod shells also

occur.

Mudstone is characterized by laminoid fenestrae

(Fig. 7f). The fenestrae are filled with cement or sediment.

Skeletal components are mainly thin-shelled ostracods,

with green algal fragments, Aeolisaccus sp., and charo-

phyte oogonia present locally. Rare peloids and small

benthic foraminifera (miliolids) occur together with some

recrystallized gastropod shells. Ostracods are mainly rep-

resented by well-preserved disarticulated valves and only a

few specimens show articulated valves.

The deposits show sedimentary structures resulting from

desiccation processes (birdseyes), and microbial layers,

characterized by clotted textures, bearing charophyte

oogonia.

The laminated bindstone is characterized by alternating

peloidal layers, thin clotted micrite layers, and intercalated

laminoid fenestrae. The peloidal layers consist of micritic

grains that are grain- or mud-supported. Mud-supported

textures are associated with micrite layers, which locally

show microbial structures. Other, minor components are

recrystallized gastropod shells, rare ostracod shells,

smaller benthic foraminifera (miliolids) and rare green

algal fragments and Aeolisaccus sp. The intergranular pore

spaces are filled with calcite spar. The fenestrae are

irregular in shape and size with smaller fenestrae corre-

sponding to birdseyes whereas larger structures have

stromatactoid shapes. These structures are also filled with

calcite spar.

Interpretation: LF-C indicates low-energy depositional

environments between upper intertidal and restricted

lagoon environments (Wilson 1975; Hardie and Ginsburg

1977; Simone et al. 2003; Flugel 2004). The low diversity

and low abundance of fossils and the presence of charo-

phyte oogonia indicate variable salinity. Salinity variation

from fresh to brackish water may result from periods of

heavy rainfall (Joachimski 1994) or alternation between

subaerial exposure and flooding in the upper intertidal zone

(Colombie and Strasser 2005). Cyanobacterial laminites

are interpreted as the products of shallow subtidal silty

flats, locally covered by cryptomicrobial (Aeolisaccus)

mats, and very shallow lagoons. The moderate diversity of

the faunal assemblage in wackestone and mudstone indi-

cates a lateral association with restricted to semi-restricted

lagoonal environments.

Discussion

The Coniacian–Campanian rudist-dominated limestones of

the Southern Apennines were interpreted as being depos-

ited in an open-shelf setting by Carannante et al. (1995,

1999, 2000), Simone et al. (2003) and Ruberti et al. (2006).

They demonstrated that these deposits cannot be inter-

preted through the classical model of a tropical rimmed-

shelf (Ruberti et al. 2006 and reference therein). The Co-

niacian–Campanian Apennine Platforms were dominated

by bioclastic sedimentation comprised mainly of molluscs

and foraminifers, with subordinate green algae, red algae,

ostracods and echinoids. Storm- and wave-induced currents

controlled sediment distribution on the seafloor. Rudists

thrived in most platform environments and provided the

bulk of the skeletal components by means of bioerosion.

Simone et al. (2003) distinguished two main rudist-rich

environments characterized by different hydrodynamic

conditions in an open-shelf setting: (1) a high-energy

environment dominated by lens-shaped, rudist-rich sedi-

ment bodies, with very low to absent relief where rudists

and rudist fragments were washed by wave- and storm-

induced currents that caused the toppling of shells and their

rare in situ growth preservation; (2) a low-energy envi-

ronment developed in sheltered sectors of the platform,

dominated by mud- to silt-rich sediments, where rudists

were preserved in growth position with much bioerosion-

derived sediment. A transitional setting between storm-

dominated and relative low-energy environments was also

documented (Simone et al. 2003).

Ruberti et al. (2006) proposed a depositional model for

these platforms consistent with an open shelf with low tidal

range upon which gradual lateral facies transitions occur

and facies belts are very wide and lack a distinct shoal

complex. Wave energy was minimal because of dampening

by friction along the broad (hundreds of kilometers wide),

shallow-water (above storm-wave base) environment. In

this hydrodynamic setting, in the inner sector of the plat-

form, storm- and tidal- related scours and channels devel-

oped and successively were filled by fine sediment

dominated by foraminifera which represents the prevailing

lithofacies.

The recognized facies associations of Lepini Mountains

compare favorably with the model of Ruberti et al. (2006).

LF-C represents intertidal facies deposited in a low-energy

sector of the shelf. The laminated bindstones are inter-

preted as the deposits of intertidal to shallow subtidal silty

flats locally covered by microbial mats. This environment

was associated with very shallow lagoons in which scat-

tered, small rudist colonies occurred (cf. Simone et al.

2003). LF-A represents sedimentation associated with the

growth of rudist biostromes in low to moderate energy, silt-

496 Facies (2014) 60:489–500

123

Fig. 7 a Wackestone with small benthic foraminifera constituting the

matrix of a rudist floatstone in LF-A. b Rudist fragments derived from

bioerosion and mechanical breakdown forming the main components

of a packstone in LF-A. c Components of the cross-bedded

grainstones of LF-B including rudist fragments, foraminifera (rotal-

iids and miliolids) and thaumatoporellaceans. d Thick-shelled

porcellaneous foraminifera (Scandonea, miliolids) and agglutinated

foraminifera (Cuneolina) are common components of packstone in

LF-B. e Mudstone and wackestone of LF-C showing peloids, small-

sized miliolids, and thin-shelled ostracods. f Laminated bindstone of

LF-C showing irregular shape and size of fenestrae. Scale bar 500 lm

Facies (2014) 60:489–500 497

123

dominated environments where rudists were preserved in

growth position. The rudists grew on a subtidal, bioclastic

sandy seafloor where the bulk of the sediment was pro-

duced from fragmentation of rudist shells. The bioclastic

packstone to wackestone, made up essentially of forami-

niferal tests, periodically resulted from storm and wave

processes.

The cross-bedded grainstone of LF-B is interpreted as

the product of the sedimentation of the bioclastic fraction

derived from the reworking of rudist biostromes. LF-B

represents the migration of bars and sand-waves forming in

storm- and tidal-related scours and channels successively

passing into submarine dunes in an open-shelf setting. On

the open shelf, these bioclastic sand dunes formed the

substrate for rudist biostromes.

The correlation panel in Fig. 3 shows the lateral and

vertical relationships between the different facies associa-

tions. The correlation panel is roughly oriented in a dip

direction. It shows a very small part of the large Latium–

Abruzzi Platform that, like the other Apennine carbonate

platforms, is considered an epeiric platform (Ruberti et al.

2006). Consequently, it was not possible to determine the

size and orientation of facies belts along depositional dip

but the detail of facies associations and the resulting facies

mosaic could be evaluated over a few hundred meters.

The recognized facies are arranged into shallowing-

upward cycles with silt- and mud-rich facies at the top of

each cycle. However, the cycles were only evident after the

correlation of stratigraphic sections. Analysis of only one

section could result in a misinterpretation because the lat-

eral passage from mud-dominated to grain-supported

lithofacies (e.g., cycles 3, 6, and 12 in Fig. 3) could be

missed. As a consequence, the same cycle could appear to

have a different expression in two sections that are within

250 m of each other. This is obvious in modern carbonate

environments where mud banks, sand waves, and tidal

channels shift laterally in response to tidal, wave- and

storm-induced currents. These currents also modify the

adjacent environments and control the redistribution of

sediments and the resulting facies (Strasser and Vedrine

2009). This means that some of the vertical facies transi-

tions observed in the investigated section (see correlation

panel Fig. 3) may be ascribed to autocyclic processes. The

correlation panel also demonstrates the lateral relationships

between the three lithofacies associations (e.g., cycles 10

and 12), that were deposited in three different depositional

environments ranging from the intertidal (LF-C) to the

subtidal (LF-A, LF-B). The passage from intertidal to fully

subtidal takes place within a distance of 250 m and not

over many kilometers as presented in the classical model.

This may be considered the expression of a facies mosaic.

As evidenced by Wright and Burgess (2005), there is a

continuum of carbonate factories and facies related to

many environmental and depositional processes. In this

example, the rudist carbonate factory of LF-A is associated

with cross-bedded grainstone of LF-B, representing

migrating sand-dunes.

The record of sea-level changes is less ambiguous on a

scale of decameter-thick intervals. In the investigated suc-

cession, five major intervals are recognized (I–V) each of

them dominated by one or two facies associations. Interval I

is 35 m thick and consists of intensely dolomitized lime-

stone and it was not possible to recognize the lithofacies

associations except for a limited interval of a few meters of

LF-B. Interval II is 8 m thick and is dominated by rudist-

rich facies (LF-A). It passes upwards into the 10-m-thick

interval III, where the LF-B represents the main facies

association but LF-A is still common. Interval III records an

increase in hydrodynamic energy, suggesting more open

conditions. Successively, the succession records increas-

ingly mud-supported textures in interval IV, documented by

the spread of LF-C, which indicates more restricted con-

ditions up to the emergence in the upper part of this interval.

A new episode of open-marine conditions is marked by the

occurrence of LF-A and LF-B in interval V.

Conclusions

The Coniacian–Campanian platform of the Lepini Moun-

tains, Apennines, Italy, is characterized by three lithofacies

associations (LFA-C) deposited in an open-shelf setting

where there were gradual lateral facies transitions. LF-C

represents sedimentation on intertidal to shallow subtidal

silty flats locally covered by microbial mats. The growth of

rudist biostromes, represented by LF-A, took place in a

low-to-moderate energy environment. The grain-supported

LF-B resulted from sedimentation of the bioclastic fraction

derived from reworking of rudist biostromes in an open-

shelf setting. These bioclastic sands formed bars and sand-

waves related to storm channels and submarine dunes on

the open shelf. The correlation panel of the five investi-

gated sections shows that the recognized LF laterally pass

into one another over a few hundred meters, forming a

facies mosaic.

The recognized facies are arranged into shallowing-

upward cycles characterized by silt- and mud-rich facies at

the top of each cycle. However, these cycles were only

recognized through the correlation of stratigraphic sections

and were less evident by analyzing the single stratigraphic

sections.

In the Lepini Mountains succession, five main intervals

were recognized, each of them dominated by one or two

facies associations. With the exception of the basal part of

interval I, which is composed of intensely dolomitized

intervals, the first record of a gradual increase in

498 Facies (2014) 60:489–500

123

hydrodynamic conditions suggesting more open conditions

occurs in intervals II and III, followed by an increase in

mud-supported textures in interval IV, suggesting more

restricted conditions that culminated in emergence. A

renewal of open conditions is marked by the dominance of

LF-A and LF-B in interval V.

This outcrop investigation evidences how the applica-

tion of facies mosaic concept supports the role of the

autocyclic factors in the generation of shallowing-upward

cycles and attenuating the allocyclic forcing in a rudist

dominated platform.

Acknowledgments Funding for this research was provided by

PRIN Project 2010–2011 (leader E. Carminati). Reviewers Esmeralda

Caus and Johannes Pignatti and the editor Maurice Tucker are

thanked for critical comments that greatly improved this work. Spe-

cial thanks are due to James Hodson (RPS ENERGY) for English

review and for constructive sedimentological comments. Many thanks

to Simona Caruso to optimize. Goffredo Mariotti and Johannes Pig-

natti are thanked for indicating the investigated outcrops. We extend

our thanks to Angelo Coletti, Lorenzo Consorti, Laura Tomassetti,

and Giacomo Brandano for their help during fieldwork.

References

Accordi G, Carbone F (1988) Sequenze carbonatiche meso-cenozoi-

che. In: Accordi G, Carbone F (eds) Note illustrative alla carta

delle litofacies del Lazio-Abruzzo ed aree limitrofe, vol 114.

CNR Quaderni de ‘‘La Ricerca Scientifica’’, pp 11–92

Bernoulli D (2001) Mesozoic–Tertiary carbonate platforms, slopes

and basins of the external Apennines and Sicily. In: Vai GB,

Martini IP (eds) Anatomy of an orogen: the Apennines and

Adjacent Mediterranean Basins. Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Dordrecht, pp 307–326

Borgomano JRF (2000) The Upper Cretaceous carbonates of the

Gargano-Muge region, southern Italy: a model of platform-to-

basin transition. AAPG Bull 84:1561–1588

Carannante G, Ruberti D, Simone L (1993) Rudists and related

sediments in Late Cretaceous open-shelf settings. A case history

from Matese area (Central Apennines, Italy). G Geol 55:21–36

Carannante G, Cherchi A, Simone L (1995) Chlorozoan versus

foramol lithofacies in Late Cretaceous rudist limestones. Palae-

ogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 119:137–154

Carannante G, Graziano R, Ruberti D, Simone L (1997) Upper

Cretaceous temperate-type open shelves from northern (Sardi-

nia) and southern (Apennines–Apulia) Mesozoic Tethyan mar-

gins. In: James NP, Clarke JAD (eds) Cool-water carbonates, vol

56. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists,

Tulsa, OK, USA, p 309–325

Carannante G, Graziano R, Pappone G, Ruberti D, Simone L (1999)

Depositional system and response to sea-level oscillation of the

Senonian foramol-shelves. Examples from central Mediterranean

areas. Facies 40:1–24

Carannante G, Ruberti D, Sirna M (2000) Upper Cretaceous low-

energy ramp limestones from the Sorrento Peninsula (Southern

Apennines, Italy): micro- and macrofossil associations and their

significance in the depositional sequences. Sediment Geol

132:89–124

Carannante G, Ruberti D, Simone L (2003) Sedimentological and

taphonomic characterization of low-energy rudist-dominated

Senonian carbonate shelves (Southern Apennines, Italy): a North

African perspective. In: Gili E, Negra MH, Skelton PW (eds)

North African Cretaceous rudist and coral formations and their

contributions to carbonate platform development. NATO ASI

Series. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 189–201

Carminati E, Corda L, Mariotti G, Brandano M (2007) Tectonic

control on the architecture of a Miocene carbonate ramp in the

Central Apennines (Italy): insights from facies and backstripping

analyses. Sediment Geol 198:233–254

Carminati E, Lustrino M, Cuffaro M, Doglioni C (2010) Tectonics,

magmatism and geodynamics of Italy: what we know and what

we imagine. In: Beltrando M, Peccerillo A, Mattei M, Conticelli

S, Doglioni C (eds) The geology of Italy: tectonics and life along

plate margins. J Virtual Explorer 36. doi:10.3809/jvirtex.2010.

00226

Cestari R, Pons JM (2004) Coniacian–Santonian rudist facies in Cilento

(southern Italy). In: Hofling R (ed) Contributions to the 5th

international congress on rudists held in Erlangen, Germany 1999.

Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, vol 247. pp 175–192

Checconi A, Rettori R, Spalluto L (2008) Biostratigrafia a foramini-

feri del Cretaceo Superiore della successione di Parco Priore

(Calcare di Altamura, Piattaforma Apula, Italia Meridionale).

Annali dell’Universita degli Studi di Ferrara Museologia Scien-

tifica e Naturalistica 4:1–11

Chiocchini M, Mancinelli A (1978) Ricerche geologiche del Gran Sasso

d’Italia (Abruzzo). III. Correlazioni microbiostratigrafiche tra

facies di margine della piattaforma carbonatica e facies pelagiche

del Giurassico e Cretaceo inferiore. Studi Geol Camerti 4:19–36

Chiocchini M, Mancinelli A (2001) Sivasella monolateralis Sirel and

Gunduz, 1978 (Foraminiferida) in the Maastrichtian of Latium

(Italy). Rev Micropaleontol 44:267–277

Chiocchini M, Farinacci A, Mancinelli A, Molinari V, Potetti M

(1994) Biostratigrafia a foraminiferi, dasicladali e calpionelle

delle successioni carbonatiche mesozoiche dell’Appennino cent-

rale (Italia). In: Mancinelli A (ed) Biostratigrafia dell’Italia

centrale, Studi Geol Camerti, vol spec 9. pp 1–129

Chiocchini M, Chiocchini RA, Didaskalou P, Potetti M (2008)

Microbiostratigrafia del Triassico superiore, Giurassico e Cre-

taceo in facies di piattaforma carbonatica del Lazio centro-

meridionale e Abruzzo: revisione finale. Mem Descr Carta Geol

It 84:5–170

Civitelli G, Brandano M (2005) Atlante delle litofacies e modello

deposizionale dei Calcari a Briozoi e Litotamni nella Piattaforma

carbonatica laziale-abruzzese. Bollettino della Societa Geologica

Italiana 124:611–643

Civitelli G, Mariotti G (1975) Paleontological and sedimentological

characteristic of the Senonian of Pietrasecca (Carseolani Moun-

tains, Central Apennines). Geol Romana 14:87–124

Colombie C, Strasser A (2005) Facies, cycles, and controls on the

evolution of a keep-up carbonate platform (Kimmeridgian, Swiss

Jura). Sedimentology 52:1207–1227

Dunham RJ (1962) Classification of carbonate rocks according to

depositional texture. In: Hamm WE (ed) Classification of

carbonate rocks, a symposium. AAPG Memoir 1, pp 108–121

Eberli GP, Bernoulli D, Sanders D, Vecsei A (1993) From aggrada-

tion to progradation: the Maiella Platform, Abruzzi Italy. In:

Simo T, Scott RW, Masse JP (eds) Cretaceous carbonate

platforms. AAPG Memoir 56, pp 213–237

Embry AF, Klovan JE (1971) A Late Devonian reef tract on

Northeastern Banks Island, Northwest Territories. Bull Can Pet

Geol 19:730–781

Flugel E (2004) Microfacies of carbonate rocks: analysis, interpre-

tation and application. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

Gili E, Masse JP, Skelton PW (1995) Rudists as gregarious sediment-

dwellers, not reefbuilders, on Cretaceous carbonate platforms.

Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 118:245–267

Facies (2014) 60:489–500 499

123

Gueguen E, Doglioni C, Fernandez M (1998) On the post-25 Ma

geodynamic evolution of the Western Mediterranean. Tectono-

physics 298:259–269

Hallock P (1979) Trends in test shape with depth in large, symbiont-

bearing foraminifera. J Foraminifer Res 9:61–69

Hallock P (1983) Larger foraminifera as depth indicators in carbonate

depositional environments. AAPG Bull 67:477–478

Hardie LA, Ginsburg RN (1977) Layering: the origin and environ-

mental significance of lamination and thin bedding. In: Hardie

LA (ed) Sedimentation on the modem carbonate tidal flats of

Northwest Andros Island. Bahamas. The Johns Hopkins Uni-

versity Press, Baltimore, pp 50–123

Insalaco E (1998) The descriptive nomenclature and classification of

growth fabrics in fossil scleractinian reefs. Sediment Geol

118:159–186

Joachimski MM (1994) Subaerial exposure and deposition of

shallowing-upward sequences: evidence from stable isotopes of

Purbeckian peritidal carbonates (basal Cretaceous), Swiss and

French Jura Mountains. Sedimentology 41:805–824

Johnson CC, Sanders D, Kauffman E, Hay WW (2002) Patterns and

processes influencing Upper Cretaceous reefs. In: Kiessling W,

Flugel E, Golonca J (eds) Phanerozoic reef patterns, vol 72.

SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), pp 549–85 (Special

Publication)

Kidwell SM, Holland SM (1991) Field description of coarse

bioclastic fabrics. Palaios 6:426–434

Mariotti G (1982) Alcune facies a Rudiste dei Monti Carseolani:

descrizione e correlazione dal bordo occidentale all’interno della

Piattaforma Laziale-Abruzzese. Geol Romana 21:885–902

Molinari-Paganelli V, Tilia-Zuccari A (1987) Benthic foraminifera

horizons in the Late Cretaceous platform carbonates of the

Central Apennines (Latium, Italy). Mem Soc Geol Italy

40:175–186

Parotto M, Praturlon A (2004) The Southern Apennine Arc. In:

Crescenti V, D’Offizi S, Merlino S, Sacchi L (eds) Geology of

Italy, Italian Geology Society Special Volume for the IGC 32,

pp 33–58

Pomar L, Hallock P (2008) Carbonate factories: a conundrum in

sedimentary geology. Earth Sci Rev 87:134–169

Pomar L, Gili E, Obrador A, Ward WC (2005) Facies architecture and

high-resolution sequence stratigraphy of an upper Cretaceous

platform margin succession, Southern Central Pyrenees, Spain.

Sediment Geol 175:339–365

Ruberti D, Toscano F, Carannante G, Simone L (2006) Rudist

lithosomes related to current pathways in Upper Cretaceous

temperate-type, inner shelves: a case study from the Cilento area,

southern Italy. In: Pedley HM, Carannante G (eds) Cool-water

carbonates: depositional systems and palaeoenvironmental con-

trols, vol 255. Geological Society, London, pp 179–195 (Special

Publications)

Sgrosso I (1968) Note biostratigrafiche sul M. Vesole (Cilento).

Bollettino della Societa naturale in Napoli 77:159–180

Simone L, Carannante G, Ruberti D, Sirna M, Sirna G, Laviano A,

Tropeano M (2003) Rudist-rich bodies development and growth

in central-southern Italy early Senonian carbonate shelves: high-

energy vs low-energy settings. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol

Palaeoecol 200:5–29

Skelton PW (1978) The evolution of functional design in rudists

(Hippuritacea) and its taxonomic implications. Philos Trans R

Soc Lond B 284:305–318

Skelton PW, Gili E (1991) Palaeoecologic classification of rudist

morphotypes. In: Sladic-Trifunovic M (ed) First international

conference on rudists, October 1988. Proceedings Serbian

Geological Society, vol 2. Beograd, pp 1–86 (Special Publication)

Skelton PW, Gili E, Vicens E, Obrador A (1995) The growth fabric of

gregarious rudist elevators (hippuritids) in a Santonian carbonate

platform in the southern Central Pyrenees. Palaeogeogr Palae-

oclimatol Palaeoecol 119:107–126

Stossel I, Bernoulli D (2000) Rudist lithosome development on the

Maiella carbonate platform margin. In: Insalaco E, Skelton PW,

Palmer TJ (eds) Carbonate platform system components and

interactions, vol 178. Geological Society, London, pp 177–190

(Special Publications)

Strasser A, Vedrine S (2009) Controls on facies mosaics of carbonate

platforms: a case study from the Oxfordian of the Swiss Jura. In:

Swart P, Eberli G, McKenzie J (eds) Perspectives in carbonate

geology, vol 41. pp 199–213 (IAS Special Publications)

Tesovic B, Gusic I, Jelaska V, Buckovic D (2001) Stratigraphy and

microfacies of the Upper Cretaceous Pucisc a Formation, Island

of Brac, Croatia. Cretac Res 22:591–613

Wilson JL (1975) Carbonate facies in geologic history. Springer,

Berlin Heidelberg New York

Wright VP, Burgess PM (2005) The carbonate factory continuum,

facies mosaics and microfacies: an appraisal of some of the key

concepts underpinning carbonate sedimentology. Facies 51:19–25

500 Facies (2014) 60:489–500

123