bagherpour and vaziri-2012-facies, paleoenvironment, carbonate platform and facies changes across...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Bagherpour, Borhan]On: 10 June 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 938493264]Publisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Historical BiologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713717695

Facies, paleoenvironment, carbonate platform and facies changes acrossPaleocene Eocene of the Taleh Zang Formation in the Zagros Basin, SW-IranBorhan Bagherpoura; Mohammad R. Vaziria

a Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

First published on: 09 June 2011

To cite this Article Bagherpour, Borhan and Vaziri, Mohammad R.(2011) 'Facies, paleoenvironment, carbonate platformand facies changes across Paleocene Eocene of the Taleh Zang Formation in the Zagros Basin, SW-Iran', HistoricalBiology,, First published on: 09 June 2011 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2011.587185URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2011.587185

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713717695

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2011.587185

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Facies, paleoenvironment, carbonate platform and facies changes across Paleocene Eoceneof the Taleh Zang Formation in the Zagros Basin, SW-Iran

Borhan Bagherpour* and Mohammad R. Vaziri

Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

(Received 30 March 2011; final version received 8 May 2011)

The Paleocene–Eocene Taleh Zang Formation of the Zagros Basin is a sequence of shallow-water carbonates. We havestudied carbonate platform, sedimentary environments and its changes based on the facies analysis with particular emphasison the biogenic assemblages of the Late Paleocene Sarkan and Early Eocene Maleh kuh sections. In the Late Paleocene, ninemicrofacies types were distinguished, dominated by algal taxa and corals at the lower part and larger foraminifera at theupper part. The Lower Eocene section is characterised by 10 microfacies types, which are dominated by diverse largerforaminifera such as alveolinids, orbitolitids and nummulitids. The Taleh Zang Formation at the Sarkan and Maleh kuhsections represents sedimentation on a carbonate ramp.

The deepening trends show a gradual increase in perforate foraminifera, the deepest environment is marked by themaximum occurrence of perforate foraminifers (Nummulites), while the shallowing trends are composed mainly ofimperforate foraminifera and also characterised by lack of fossils in tidal flat facies.

Based on the facies changes and platform evolution, three stages are assumed in platform development: I; algal andcoralgal colonies (coralgal platform), II; coralgal reefs giving way to larger foraminifera, III; dominance of diverse andnewly developing larger foraminifera lineages in oligotrophic conditions.

Keywords: Taleh Zang Formation; Paleogene; carbonate platform; Tethys; facies analysis; larger benthic foraminifera

1. Introduction

Paleogene is a period of the Earth history in which the close

interaction between global climate changes and biological

evolution can be clearly recognised (Pujalte et al. 2009).

The Paleocene–Eocene (P–E) interval was a time of intense

changes in shallow-water carbonate settings. The Paleo-

cene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM; Norris and Rohl

1999; Rohl et al. 2000) was characterised by a global 5–88C

warming of sea surface temperature in less than 10 ka

(e.g. Rohl et al. 2000). The PETM coincided with a dramatic

decrease of ,2 to 4‰ in d 13C values in which the decrease

has been measured in sedimentary rocks worldwide, called

the ‘carbon isotopic excursion’ (CIE; e.g. Kennett and Stott

1991; Koch et al. 1992; Bralower et al. 1995; Katz et al.

1999). CIE probably resulted from the rapid dissociation of

methane at the sea floor (Dickens et al. 1995; Bains et al.

1999). It was followed by an exceptional return to

preexcursion d 13C value as excess 12C was eventually

transferred out of the ocean–atmosphere carbon reservoir,

which is consistent with the estimates of the modern

residence time of carbon (Dickens 2000). From a biotic point

of view, the P–E transition was a time of widespread

diversification in terrestrial and marine biotas. Many

established clades also greatly expanded their geographical

ranges throughout this interval (Macleod et al. 2002). Open

marine organisms (planktic and benthic foraminifera,

dinoflagellates, calcareous nanoplankton) show extinction

and diversification patterns (e.g. Thomas 1998; Crouch et al.

2001; Bralower 2002; Kelly 2002). The transition from the

Paleocene to the Eocene witnessed the largest extinction

event affecting the deep water benthic foraminifera during

the last 90 Myr, the so-called Benthic Extinction Event

(BEE; Galeotti et al. 2004).

Many studies have been conducted on P–E setting, but

mainly focusing on deeper water environments. Scheibner

et al. (2005) analysed Paleocene/Eocene sections in

the Galala Mountains in Egypt (southern Tethys), and

suggested an interplay between rising temperatures and

changes in the trophic resource regime and their effects on

biota (especially corals and larger foraminifera) and

long-term evolutional changes in larger foraminifera as the

main causes for the changes in shallow-water facies.

Furthermore, for the Egyptian platform they postulated

an evolution of the shallow-water platform across the

Paleocene–Eocene boundary in three successive stages,

characterised by changing biota.

In this study, we focus on sedimentary environments,

foraminiferal paleoecology and carbonate platform of

lower Paleogene Taleh Zang Formation of shallow-water

ISSN 0891-2963 print/ISSN 1029-2381 online

q 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2011.587185

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Historical Biology

iFirst article, 2011, 1–22

Downloaded By: [Bagherpour, Borhan] At: 08:29 10 June 2011

carbonate in the Zagros basin and compare them with the

other studies in the Tethys.

The Taleh Zang Formation is part of the lower

Paleogene (Upper Paleocene–Lower Eocene) succession

in the Lorestan zone of the Zagros basin, southwest of Iran

(Figure 1). The basin developed on the eastern continental

margin of Tethys during the Paleogene is a typical

Cenozoic carbonate platform on which alternating

carbonates and siliciclastics were deposited (James and

Wynd 1965; Murris 1980; Sengor 1990; Motiei 1995). This

study presents the changes in shallow-marine carbonate

settings in this part of Tethys during the noted period.

2. Geological setting

The Iranian plateau extends over a number of

continental fragments welded together. Each fragment

differs in its sedimentary sequence, nature and age of

magmatism and metamorphism, and also its structural

character and intensity of deformation (Berberian and

King 1981). These fragments are as follows: (1) Zagros

basin, (2) Sanandaj-Sirjan zone, (3) Urumieh-Dokhtar

volcanic arc, (4) Central Iran, (5) Alborz, (6) Kopeh

Dagh, (7) Lut block and (8) Makran (Figure 1a). The

Zagros Basin is the second largest basin in the Middle

East with an area of about 553,000 km2, which extends

Figure 1. Location map. (a) General map of Iran showing eight geologic provinces (Azizi and Moinevaziri 2008). (b) Subdivision ofZagros provinces (Sherkati and Letouzey 2004).

B. Bagherpour and M.R. Vaziri2


from Turkey, northeastern Syria and northeastern Iraq

throughout northwestern Iran to southeastern Iran

(Hempton 1987).

Simply Folded Zagros, in which two studied sections

are located, is one of the three zones, namely the

Khuzestan Plain, the Simply Folded Zagros and the

Imbricated Thrust Zone (Motiei 1993). The Zagros fold–

thrust belt resulted from the continental collision between

the Arabian margin and the Eurasian plate following the

closure of the Neo-Tethys Ocean during the Cenozoic

(Stocklin 1968; Falcon 1974).

The Zagros fold–thrust belt is separated into several

zones (Figure 1b), which differ according to their

structural style and sedimentary history (Falcon 1961) –

Thrust Zone, Dezful Embayment, Izeh, Lorestan, Fars,

Abadan Plain, Bandar Abbas Hinterland and Complex

structure with metamorphic rocks. The study area (Maleh

kuh and Sarkan anticlines) is located in the Lorestan zone

of the Zagros basin (Figure 1b). According to Alavi (2007)

among the basement structures, the Khanaqin and

Bala-Rud fault systems bound the Lorestan salient to the

northwest and southeast. In the Lorestan Province (NE

Zagros), the detritic Amiran, Taleh Zang and Kashkan

formations were accumulated in a limited flexural basin in

response to the advancing thrust sheets (Homke et al.

2006).

3. Study areas and methodology

The study area is located southwest of the Khorramabad

and northeast of Pol-e-Dokhtar in the central part of the

Lorestan. Two sections were measured in details alongside

the northern flank of the Maleh kuh anticline at 478410 N

and 338100 E and northeastern flank of the Sarkan anticline

at 478500 N and 338170 E (Figure 2). The outcrop

thicknesses of the Taleh Zang Formation in these sections

are 122 metres at the Maleh kuh section and 120 metres at

the Sarkan section. Samples were collected from every

1.5 to 2 metres from (lithified) limestone beds, and 95

sampling horizons were studied as well. In case of

petrographical classification, Dunham classification

(Dunham 1962) has been used. Sedimentary structures

in the field observation have been used for sedimentary

environment interpretations.

4. Stratigraphy and age (Biostratigraphy)

The Taleh Zang Formation of Upper Paleocene–Middle

Eocene age is underlain conformably by Amiran Formation

and overlain by Kashkan Formation (Figure 3). This unit

has been deposited only in Lorestan with great changes in

thickness, facies and age. Amiran, Taleh Zang and Kashkan

Formations constitute a shallowing-upward depositional

sequence from deep-water siliciclastic to platform and

Figure 2. Geological map of the study areas in the Lorestan salient (after Alavi 2007).

Historical Biology 3


non-marine environments, respectively (Homke et al.

2009). According to Adabi et al. (2008), based on the larger

benthic foraminifera studied by Wynd (1965), the type

section of Taleh Zang Formation (which is located in the

western part of Lorestan) is Lower to Middle Eocene in age.

In the eastern part of Lorestan, where the Taleh Zang

Formation is a thin limestone unit underlain by Amiran

Formatin, fossil assemblage shows the Paleocene (Motiei

1993). In addition, Maghfori Moghaddam and Jalali (2004)

and Homke et al. (2009) established the Upper Paleocene

(Thanetian) for Taleh Zang Formation in the south and

southwest Khorramabad and Amiran anticline, respect-

ively. In the studied sections, benthic foraminifera such as

Orbitolites complanatus, Cuvillierina yarzai, Nummulites

globulus, Alveolina pasticillata, A. cf. avellana,

A. decipiens and A. lepidula strongly suggest an Early

Eocene age for the Maleh kuh section. Glomalveolina

primaeva, G. telemetensis, Periloculina sp., Lockhartia

diversa, Falotella alavensis, Stomatorbina binkhorsti,

Vania anatolica, Coskinon rajkae, Ranikothalia sindensis,

Sakesaria sp. in the lower part of Sarkan section and

Miscellanea iranica, Miscellanea miscella, Miscellanea

rhomboidea and Ranikothalia nuttalli in the upper part of

Sarkan section strongly suggest a Late Paleocene age for

the Sarkan section (Figure 4).

Taleh Zang Formation reveals a homogeneous

lithology. The investigated strata of the Paleocene Taleh

Zang Formation are composed of massive limestone,

medium-bedded limestone, marlstone and two conglom-

erate units. Algal and coral remains are abundant in

yellowish massive limestone at basal parts. Medium-

bedded limestone at middle parts consists of abundant

nummulitids. Conglomerate units are restricted to two

isolated occurrences (Figure 5). The investigated strata of

Eocene Taleh Zang Formation consist of massive lime-

stone, medium-bedded limestone and marlstone. Basal

Figure 3. Correlation chart of the Tertiary deposits of southwest Iran (adopted from Ala 1982), and simplified NE–SW stratigraphiccross-section across Lurestan Province from Kabir Kuh to the imbricate zone. The Sarkan and Maleh kuh stratigraphic columns are fromthis study (after Homke et al. 2009).



part feature is cream limestone with a high percentage of

alvelolinids, which changes into nummulitid-bearing grey

limestone. The upper part of the investigated strata

consists of stromatolitic limestone and gastropod-bearing

limestone (Figure 6). Amiran Formation at both sections

consists of sandstone and sandy marlstone, while Adabi

et al. (2008) reported conglomerate of Amiran Formation

as lower boundary of Taleh Zang Formation at type

section. In addition, the upper boundary of Taleh Zang

Formation at Sarkan and Maleh kuh sections was defined

by red conglomerate and red siltstone of Kashkan

Formation, respectively.

Figure 4. Selected index species of both sections. (1) Alveolina decipiens, Schwager; magnification 20£ . (2) Alveolina pasticillata,Schwager; magnification £20. (3) Alveolina cf. avellana, Hottinger; magnification 20£ . (4) Alveolina vredenburgi, Davies and pinfold;magnification 20£ . (5) G. lepidula, (Schwager); magnification £40. (6) Cuvillierina yarzai, Ruiz de Gaona; magnification £40.(7) Fallotella alavensis, Mangin; magnification £20. (8) G. primaeva (Reichel); magnification £20. (9) Ranikothalia sindensis, Davies;magnification £16. (10) Miscellanea miscella (d’Archiac and Haime); magnification £40. (11) Lockhartia diversa, Smout; magnification£40. (12) Sakesaria sp.; magnification £40. (13) Ranikothalia nuttali, Davies; magnification £16. (14) Miscellanea rhomboidea, Kuss &Leppig; magnification £20 (pic 1 to 6 belong to Maleh kuh section and 7 to 14 belong to Sarkan section).



5. Facies description and interpretation

The Taleh Zang Formation at the studied sections is

subdivided into 17 different microfacies (9 facies at the

Sarkan section and 10 at the Maleh kuh section; Table 1),

each characterised by a depositional texture, petrographic

analysis and foraminiferal assemblage. Based on paleoen-

vironmental and sedimentological analysis, four facies

belts can be recognised: tidal flat, lagoon, shoal and open

marine.

5.1 Lower Eocene facies

The following paragraphs discuss the identified facies,

arranged by their inferred depositional setting (shallow to

deep) at Lower Eocene Maleh kuh section.

5.1.1 Facies 1: stromatolitic boundstone

This facies is composed of mud supported lithology,

sometimes with fine sand to silt size quartz, and fine wavy

laminae without fossils. This facies occurs at the upper

part of the Maleh kuh section. Laminated stromatolites

Figure 5. Vertical facies distribution and sequences of theUpper Paleocene Taleh Zang Formation at the Sarkan Section.

Figure 6. Vertical facies distribution and sequences of theLower Eocene Taleh Zang Formation at the Maleh kuh section.



Tab

le1

.S

um

mar

yo

fth

efa

cies

typ

esfo

rth

eM

aleh

ku

h(E

oce

ne)

and

Sar

kan

(Pal

eoce

ne)

sect

ion

s.

Fac

ies

Ag

eM

ain

com

po

nen

tS

tru

ctu

reE

nv

iro

nm

ent

1Stromatoliticboundstone

Eo

cen

eS

ilt

size

qu

artz

Wav

yla

min

aeT

idal

flat

-in

ner

ram

p2

Dolomudstone

Eo

cen

ean

dP

aleo

cen

eS

ilt

size

qu

artz

Th

inb

edd

ed,

bir

d’s

eye

stru

ctu

reT

idal

flat

-in

ner

ram

p

3Sandylimemudstone

Eo

cen

eS

ilt

size

qu

artz

Bir

d’s

eye

stru

ctu

reT

idal

flat

-in

ner

ram

p4

Limemudstone

Eo

cen

ean

dP

aleo

cen

eH

erri

ng

bo

ne

cro

ssb

edd

ing

Tid

alfl

at-i

nn

erra

mp

5Miliolidgastropodwackestone

Eo

cen

eD

asy

clad

acea

nal

gae

,g

astr

op

od

s,m

icri

tic

bio

clas

t,m

ilio

lid

sM

ediu

mb

edd

ed,

dar

kg

rey

Lag

oo

n-i

nn

erra

mp

6Alveolinid

Orbitolites

packstone–wackestone

Eo

cen

eP

elo

ids,

biv

alv

ean

dg

astr

op

od

,o

rbit

oli

tid

s,al

veo

lin

ids,

mil

ioli

ds

Th

ick

bed

ded

,cr

eam

colo

ure

dL

ago

on

-in

ner

ram

p

7Miliolidpeloidalgrainstone

Eo

cen

eM

ilio

lid

s,p

elo

ids,

Un

dif

fere

nti

ated

bio

clas

tsT

hic

kb

edd

ed,

crea

m,

com

pac

tL

ago

on

-in

ner

ram

p8

Alveolinabioclastic

grainstone

Eo

cen

eA

lveo

lin

ids,

intr

acla

sts,

mil

ioli

ds,

rota

liid

s,Nummulites,valvulinids

Th

ick

bed

ded

,w

hit

e,co

mp

act

Sh

oal

-in

ner

ram

p

9AlveolinaNummulites

packstone–grainstone

Eo

cen

eNummulites,alveolinids

Th

inb

edd

ed,

crea

mO

pen

mar

ine-

inn

erra

mp

10

Nummulitespackstone–wackestone

Eo

cen

eB

rok

enNummulites

Th

into

med

ium

bed

ded

Op

enm

arin

e-m

idd

lera

mp

11

Agglutinated-conical

foraminifera

glomalveolina

Pal

eoce

ne

Ag

glu

tin

ated

-co

nic

alfo

ram

inif

era,

glo

mal

veo

lin

ids,

laca

zin

ids,

mil

ioli

ds

Gre

y,

thic

kb

edd

edL

ago

on

-in

ner

ram

p

12

Glomalveolinabioclastpackstone

Pal

eoce

ne

Glo

mal

veo

lin

ids,

mil

ioli

ds,

rota

liid

s,n

um

mu

liti

ds,

red

alg

aean

dco

rals

,b

ival

ve

and

gas

tro

po

dG

rey

ish

crea

m,

thic

kb

edd

edL

ago

on

-in

ner

ram

p

13

Corallinealgalgrainstone

Pal

eoce

ne

Distichoplaxbiserialis,geniculate

corallinealgae,

miliolids,Peloids,quartzgrain

Wh

ite,

med

ium

bed

ded

inn

erra

mp

14

Foraminiferaalgalpackstone

Pal

eoce

ne

Nummulites,Miscellanea,Ranikothalia

Gre

yis

hcr

eam

,m

ediu

mb

edd

edF

ora

min

ifer

ash

oal

-in

ner

ram

p1

5Foraminiferapackstone

Pal

eoce

ne

Nummulites,Miscellanea,Ranikothalia

Gre

yis

hcr

eam

,m

ediu

mb

edd

edF

ora

min

ifer

ash

oal

-in

ner

ram

p1

6Coralgalboundstone

Pal

eoce

ne

scle

ract

inia

nco

ral,

Polystrata

alba,

no

n-g

enic

ula

teco

rall

ine

red

alg

ae,D.biserialis,

mil

ioli

ds

ort

ho

ph

rag

min

ids

Cre

am,

thic

kb

edd

edm

idd

lera

mp

17

Algalboundstone

Pal

eoce

ne

P.alba,M

esophyllum

,Lithothamnion,A

cervulina,D

.biserialis,bryozoans

Cre

am,

thic

kb

edd

edm

idd

lera

mp



structures are formed by the trapping and binding activities

of phototrophic microbes (Riding 1999). This facies type is

not only common in tidal flat sediments (Flugel 1982;

Hardie 1986; Lasemi 1995; Steinhauff and Walker 1996;

Hernandez-Romano 1999; Aguilera-Franco and Hernandez-

Romano 2004), and very common in the intertidal zone, but

also in supratidal and shallow subtidal environments (Flugel

2004). Also, the fine-sized quartz grains in this facies

suggest an environment close to coast (Figure 7a,b).

5.1.2 Facies 2: dolomudstone

This facies is characterised by yellow–brown, massive,

fine grain dolomite without any fossils or sign of fossils.

Bird’s eye structure and fine quartz grain sometimes are

visible. All dolomudstone samples were completely clear

of other sedimentary particles. Dolomudstone constitutes

the uppermost facies at the Maleh kuh section, also middle

and upper part of Sarkan section.

Due to fine grain crystals, lack of fossils, the presence

of bird’s eye structure and silt size quartz grains, this facies

was accumulated in low-energy tidal flat environment.

Mahboubi et al. (2001) assumed an upper intertidal

environment for the same facies (sandy dolomudstone).

This facies occurs in both sections (Figure 7c).

5.1.3 Facies 3 and 4: sandy lime mudstone and lime

mudstone

These facies are characterised by non-laminated, hom-

ogenous lime mudstone, lack of fossils and sometimes

bird’s eye structures. Facies 3 contains fine quartz grains

(10–15%) and occurs in both sections while facies 4

occurs at the upper part of the Maleh kuh section.

Unfossiliferous lime mudstone or fine-grained

dolomicrite sometimes with autogenetic evaporate

minerals occur in tidal flat and arid evaporitic coasts

(Flugel 2004). Detrital grains existence shows that facies

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 7. (a) Facies 1: Stromatolitic boundstone. (b) macroscopic photo of Stromatolitic boundstone. (c) Facies 2: Dolomudstone. (d)microscopic photo of bird’s eye structures. (e) Facies 3: Sandy lime mudstone. (f) Facies 4: Lime mudstone. Scale bar: 1 mm.



1, 2 and 3 are formed near the detrital grains source

(Figure 7d–f).

5.1.4 Facies 5: miliolid gastropod wackestone

This facies is characterised by wackestone texture and

contains dasycladacean algae and gastropods (15–20),

micritic bioclast (8–10%) and miliolids (25%). This facies

shows low diversity and high abundance of miliolids, and

occurs at the upper part of the Maleh kuh section.

The presence of mud matrix in this microfacies

indicates that deposition was mostly in a low- to moderate-

energy environment. The abundance of miliolids is

generally taken as evidence for restricted lagoonal and/or

relatively nutrient-rich back-reef environments (Geel

2000). Therefore, low diversity and high abundance of

miliolids indicate that this facies accumulated in a

nutrient-rich restricted lagoon environment. The presence

of the dasycladaleans suggests a very shallow marine

setting (Wray 1977). According to Rasser et al. (2005), the

association of the biogenic components suggests depo-

sition in a more restricted environment with a more

onshore position than the larger foraminiferal microfacies

types (Figure 8a).

5.1.5 Facies 6: Alveolinid Orbitolites packstone–

wackestone

The matrix is a fine-grained micrite. This facies consists of

foraminifera (50–55%), peloids (5–10%), bivalves and

gastropods fragment (5–10%). Orbitolitids comprises 15–

25%, alveolinids 50–60%, miliolids about 10%, valvuli-

nids, rotaliids and Nummulites each about 5% of the

benthic foraminifera assemblage in facies 6.

This facies occurs at the lower and middle parts of the

Maleh kuh section.

The presence of orbitolitids suggests a protected

shallow-water environment (Hottinger 1983). The pre-

sence of alveolinids and miliolids in a fine-grained matrix

confirms this interpretation. Rasser et al. (2005) inter-

preted that Alveolina orbitolitids facies has a lateral facies

of the Alveolina facies. Also inner-ramp settings are

characterised by alveolinid-dominated facies types, partly

with Orbitolites. Due to these statements and stratigraphic

position, facies 6 was deposited in shallow environment in

the inner-ramp settings (Figure 8b,c).

5.1.6 Facies 7: miliolid peloidal grainstone

The main feature of this sorted facies is the dominance of

small miliolids (30%) and peloids (30%) in a grainstone

texture. Undifferentiated small bioclasts (10%) are the

other components. This facies is characterised by low

diversity and limited foraminifera constituents and occurs

at the base of the Maleh kuh section.

The presence of miliolids and peloids suggests a

restricted environment, supported by low diversity. The

grainstone texture suggests a moderate- to high-energy

environment. According to Flugel (2004), this facies is

common in shallow platform interiors comprising

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 8. (a) Facies 5: Miliolid gastropod wackestone. (b) Facies 6: Alveolinid orbitolites packstone–wackestone. (c) Facies 6:Alveolinid orbitolites packstone–wackestone. (d) Facies 7: miliolid peloidal grainstone. Scale bar: 1 mm. M; Miliolid. GS; gastropod.AL; Alveolinids. OR; Orbitolites. RO; Rotaliid. B; Bioclast.



protected shallow-marine environments with moderate

water circulation. This microfacies is interpreted as a

leeward shoal environment (Figure 8d).

5.1.7 Facies 8: Alveolina bioclastic grainstone

Of this facies, foraminifera account for 50%, intraclasts

account for 10% and ooids account for about 5%.

Foraminiferal assemblage contains alveolinids (50%),

miliolids (25%), rotaliids and Nummulites (each 10%),

valvulinids and orbitolitids (each 5%). Both abundance

and diversity are high. This facies occurs at the lower and

middle parts of the Maleh kuh section.

The well sorted and rounded grains and the absence of

fine-grained matrix indicate high-energy condition for the

deposition of Alveolina bioclastic grainstone. The

abundance of typical lagoonal fauna including alveolinids

and miliolids shows a leeward shoal position. Moreover,

this facies presents a transitional position between the

Alveolinid Orbitolites packstone–wackestone and the

Alveolina Nummulites packstone–grainstone. In accord-

ance with the standard microfacies types described by

Wilson (1975) and Flugel (1982), this facies is interpreted

as a shoal environment above the fair-weather wave base

(FWWB) which was located at the platform margin,

separating the open-marine from the more restricted

marine environments (Figure 9a,b).

5.1.8 Facies 9: Alveolina Nummulites packstone–

grainstone

This facies consists mainly of foraminifera and constitutes

70–80% of the rock volume. Foraminifera assemblage

shows an equal abundance of alveolinids (50%) and small

robust Nummulites (40%). Valvulinids, rotaliids, orbitoli-

tids and miliolids altogether constitute 10%. It is the most

diverse facies. This facies occurs at the lower and middle

parts of the Maleh kuh section.

(b)(a)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 9. (a, b) Facies 8: Alveolina bioclastic grainstone. (c, d) Facies 9: Alveolina Nummulites packstone–grainstone. (e) Facies 10:Nummulites packstone–wackestone (Note to the fragmentation). (f) Facies 10: Nummulites wackestone. Scale bar: 1 mm.



Alveolinids and nummulitids thrive in different

environments (Hohenegger et al. 1999); this facies reflects

an offshore transport of alveolinids into the Nummulites

facies. Alveolinids are probably derived from the

environments of the Alveolina bioclast grainstone.

Therefore, the association of normal marine fauna and

protected fauna indicates that deposition took place in the

more seaward position or according to Taheri et al. (2008)

in the open lagoon environment.

The texture suggests a high- to moderate-energy

condition. Also according to Hallock and Glenn (1986),

foraminifera build more robust shells in high-energy

environments. A higher diversity also suggests non-

restricted environment (Figure 9c,d).

5.1.9 Facies 10: Nummulites packstone–wackestone

Nummulites constitute 100% of the benthic foraminifera

in this facies and range from 15 to 50% of the rock volume;

the additional components are rare echinoderms. The

degree of fragmentation is high. This facies is character-

ised by a fine-grained matrix and occurs at the middle part

of the Maleh kuh section.

Proliferation of perforates benthic is indicative of

normal marine conditions (Geel 2000). Besides, according

to Hottinger (1997), nummulitids inhabit the deepest

paleoenvironments among the observed components.

The combination of micritic matrix and high degree of

fragmentation points to textural inversion (Folk 1962) that

can be explained by a low-energetic environment that was

subjected to occasional high-impact storms. They were

strong enough to cause fragmentation, but did not last long

enough to wash out the micritic groundmass. Therefore,

the Nummulites packstone–wackestone was deposited

below the FWWB (Figure 9e,f).

5.2 Upper Paleocene facies

Nine facies have been identified and arranged by their

inferred depositional setting (shallow to deep) at Upper

Paleocene Sarkan section. Dolomudstone and Sandy lime

mudstone are common both in Maleh kuh and in Sarkan

sections. For description and interpretation see facies 2 and

facies 3, which occur in Sarkan section, respectively.

5.2.1 Facies 11: Agglutinated-conical foraminifera

Glomalveolina wackestone

Mud and fine-grained micritic matrix are present and the

texture is characterised as a wackestone. Agglutinated-

conical foraminifera (especially Fallotella and Dictyoco-

nus) associated with glomalveolinids and lacazinids are

the main components (each about 30% of foraminiferal

assemblage) of this facies and contain 50% of the rock

volume and small rotaliids and small miliolids are less

abundant (10%). This facies occurs at the middle part of

the Sarkan section.

The agglutinated-conical foraminifera of the Paleo-

gene (Fallotella, Karsella, Daviesiconus, Dictyoconus,

etc.) have no ecological Neogene to recent counterparts.

But relying on other sedimentary sequences to interpret the

habitat of the conical foraminifera, such as the Adriatic

Platform (Hottinger and Drobne 1980), the position of

the conicals is clearly documented as the shallowest

association of larger foraminifera, below tidal level, in the

upper photic zone, at depths of less than 40 m (Vecchio

and Hottinger 2007). The presence of lime mud matrix

suggests low energy conditions, and the presence of

glomalveolinids and miliolids (imperforate porcellaneous)

suggests a shallow protected shelf. Also the stratigraphic

position confirms this interpretation (Figure 10a,b).

5.2.2 Facies 12: Glomalveolina bioclast packstone

This facies is characterised by a wackestone to packstone

texture and contains foraminifera (40-45%), red algae and

corals (5%), peloids (5%), bivalves and gastropods

fragments (10%). Dendritic coral (Oculina) rarely exists.

Foraminifera assemblage comprises glomalveolinids

(60%), miliolids (20%), small rotaliids (10%) and

nummulitids (10%).

Abundant occurrences of imperforate foraminifera

(including glomalveolinids) are interpreted as typical for

back-reef settings (Hottinger 1997). The presence of lime

mud peloids and gastropods supports this interpretation

(Figure 10c).

5.2.3 Facies 13: coralline algal grainstone

This facies is dominated by the fragments of Distichoplax

biserialis and geniculate coralline algae (10–15%), small

miliolids (10%), small rotaliids (5%) peloids (10–15%)

and quartz grain (10%) which is well sorted and has a

grainstone texture.

Grainstone texture, fragments of D. biserialis,

geniculate coralline algae and sorted components suggest

high-energy environment above FWWB. A similar

dominance of D. biserialis has been described from

Paleocene back-reef sediments from Oman (Racz 1979).

The combined occurrence of D. biserialis and quartz is

described from back-reef sediments from the Northern

Calcareous Alps (Moussavian 1984; Figure 10d).

5.2.4 Facies 14, 15: foraminifera algal packstone,

Foraminifera packstone

Facies 14 (Foraminifera algal packstone) is characterised

by the abundance of different types of hyaline perforate



foraminifera (Nummulites, Miscellanea, Ranikothalia)

that constitute 60% of the rock volume and without

imperforate foraminifera. These fossils generally are small

to medium and thick shelled. Subordinate components,

coral and non-geniculate red algae (Lithothamnion)

fragments are larger than in the Coralline algal grainstone

and constitute 10% of the rock volume. In addition,

foraminifera are oriented parallel to bedding, the packing

degree is usually medium to high (especially in facies 15),

echinoderms and intraclasts sometimes are present

(Figure 10e,f). Facies 14 and 15 are different by the

absence of coral and red algae fragments and increase

of Nummulites in facies 15 (Foraminifera packstone;

Figure 10g,h). Facies 14 occurs at the lower and middle

parts of the Sarkan section, while facies 15 occurs at the

upper part of the Sarkan section.

The presence of hyaline perforate foraminifera and

larger size of non-geniculate red algae fragments suggest

seaward and deeper position than Coralline algal

grainstone for this facies. The grainy texture hints at

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 10. (a, b) Facies 13: agglutinated-conical foraminifera alveolina wackestone. (c) Facies 14: Alveolina bioclast packstone.(d) Facies 15: Coralline algal grainstone (XPL). (e, f) Facies 16: Foraminiferal algal packstone (Note algal and coral fragments). (g, h)Facies 17: Foraminifera packstone (Note parallel orientation). Scale bar: 1 mm. A; Agglutinated-conical foraminifera. L; Lacazinid. M;Miliolid. G; Glomalveolinid C; Coral. B; Bivalve. Ro; Rotaliid. D; Distichoplax biserialis. R; Non-geniculate coralline red algae.



moderate- to high-energy environment and parallel

orientation to bedding supports this interpretation, since

according to Specht and Brenner (1979) and Aigner (1985)

this feature seems to have been formed by the winnowing

of wackestones and the removal of smaller particles. Also,

change from imperforated to perforated hyaline fauna

shows transition from protected environment to normal

marine environment. The absence of coral and algal debris

and higher abundance of perforated hyaline fauna in facies

15 indicate more seaward position than facies 14.

A similar facies type with abundant fragments of non-

geniculate and geniculate corallinaceans, Polystrata alba

and larger foraminifera is described as reef crest/back-reef

deposits by Baceta et al. (2005). Also Scheibner et al.

(2007) described a similar facies with geniculate

(fragments of D. biserialis), non-geniculate (Sporolithon,

Lithothamnion-type, P. alba) red algae and quartz grains

as sediments lie between the shallow intertidal to shallow-

subtidal rocky substrates of the coralline algal packstones

and the deeper reef-related microfacies types.

5.2.5 Facies 16: coralgal boundstone

The bulk of this facies consists of massive limestone. This

facies mainly consists of scleractinian coral colonies (50%

of the rock volume), which usually are encrusted by red

algae (P. alba, non-geniculate coralline red algae; 15–20%

of the rock volume). Small miliolids and orthophragminids

are present but never exceed 10% of the rock volume.

Macrofauna consists of bivalves and bryozoans in small

amounts. Large specimens of D. biserialis are present.

This facies is associated with the algal boundstone facies

and occurs in the lower part of the Sarkan section and has a

thickness of 14 m (Figure 11a,b).

A recent analogy for depth dependence of corals and

red algae is the Flower Garden Banks in the northwestern

Gulf of Mexico, where coralline algae are the dominant

sediment contributors below 50 m (Minnery 1990).

5.2.6 Facies 17: Algal boundstone

Algal boundstone is dominated by encrusting algae (P. alba

and coralline contain Mesophyllum, Lithothamnion; 25%),

which are associated with bryozoans and encrusting

foraminifera (Acervulina; 15%) and forms wavy crusts.

The diversity and abundance of larger benthic foraminifera

are very low. Fine-grained micritic matrix is present

and in addition, large and unfragmented specimens of

D. biserialis are abundant (10%; Figure 11c,d).

The colonial organisms in both facies suggest relatively

same facies belt for them. However, according to Baceta

et al. (2005), the dominance of red algae over corals is a

sign for a deeper water setting. According to Rasser (2000),

the presence of P. alba (in facies 16 and 17) and acervulinid

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 11. (a, b) Facies 18: Coralgal boundstone. (c, d) Facies 19: Algal bounstone, Scale bar: 1 mm. MT; Fine-grained micritic matrix.P; Polystrata alba. AC; Acervulinid. D; Distichoplax biserialis. R; Non-geniculate coralline red algae.



(in facies 17) foraminifera suggests deposition in deeper

water than Coralline algal grainstone, Foraminifera algal

packstone and Foraminifera packstone for both types of

boundstone (facies16 and 17). The presence of micritic

matrix and unfragmented large specimens of D. biserialis

and non-geniculate coralline suggest a low-energy

environment, probably below FWWB.

5.3 Conglomerate unites

Conglomerate units are restricted to two isolated

occurrences. The thicknesses of these units are about 1.5

to 2 m. The main feature of these units is lateral

discontinuity and lenticular shape. The lower conglomer-

ate unit shows upward fining trend. The proportion of

carbonate increases upward and it becomes fossiliferous

(especially hyaline foraminifera) at the top. According

to lateral discontinuity, fining upward trend, unscathed

foraminifera and stratigraphic position, these units are

interpreted as submarine channels, which are probably

resulted from downslope transportation (Figure 12).

Moreover, according to Homke et al. (2009) towards

the top of the Taleh Zang Formation, one ,20-m-thick

shallow-marine siliciclastic unit occurs, which forms a

topographic high in the Amiran anticline. This unit is

composed of green-to-reddish sandstone and reddish

conglomerate with radiolarite pebbles.

As far as the source of the quartz grains is concerned,

however, it is hard to mention a distinct source for fine

grains in facies 3, wind can be the possible factor for

transportation. Regarding the coarse quartz grains in

Sarkan section, petrographic studies have shown that they

are mainly composed of radiolarite fragments of older

sedimentary rocks (Figure 12).

6. Paleoenvironmental model

6.1 Sarkan section

Based on the distribution of the foraminifera, lithology and

vertical facies relationships, the Upper Paleocene Taleh

Zang Formation at the Sarkan section shows different

settings from Early Eocene Taleh Zang Formation.

(a) (b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 12. Conglomerate unites (a, b) photomicrographs of the conglomerate, XPL and PPL, respectively. (c, d) Macroscopic photo ofConglomerate unites, Note lateral discontinuity, lenticular shape and upward fining trend.



At the Sarkan section, four major environments can be

recognised. These environments are subdivided into nine

facies (Figure 13), which are mainly characterised

by Coralgal boundstone and Algal boundstone (facies

16–17) at the lower part of the section and great

abundance of larger foraminifera (facies 14–15) at the

upper part (Figure 5).

Tidal flat facies at the Sarkan, including Dolomudstone

and sandy lime mudstone (facies 2–3), are the same as

equivalent facies at the Maleh kuh section. Lagoon

environment (facies 11–12 & 13) is characterised by the

presence of porcellaneous and conical foraminifera with

wackestone to packstone texture and fragments of

D. biserialis plus geniculate coralline algae with

grainstone texture. Deepening trend within platform is

followed by Foraminifera algal packstone, Foraminifera

packstone (facies 14–15). Deepest facies at this section

includes two facies (facies 16–17) and is characterised by

the abundance of corals, algal communities and encrusting

organisms. Deepening trend is reflected by the changes

from grainstone rich in fragments of D. biserialis plus

geniculate coralline algae to facies with non-geniculate

coralline algae plus P. alba and facies with non-geniculate

coralline algae, P. alba and acervulinid foraminifera.

Figure 13. Depositional model for the Upper Paleocene platform carbonates of the Taleh Zang Formation at the Sarkan section.



The decreasing abundance of geniculate corallines and the

increasing abundance of peyssonneliacean algae and –

especially – acervulinid foraminifera reflect a character-

istical deepening trend within platform (e.g. Reid and

Macintyre 1988; Perrin 1992; Rasser and Piller 1997;

Rasser 2000).

Facies changes show a depth gradient from shallower

to deeper environments with distribution of foraminifera

and other important components. Gradual facies changes

with an increase of water depth from inner ramp to middle

ramp environments and the absence of well-developed

margin and slope facies suggest a low gradient ramp.

From this point of view, inner ramp settings (above

FWWB) are represented by facies 1, 2, 11 to 14, also

middle ramp settings (below FWWB) are represented by

facies 16–17.

6.2 Maleh kuh section

Four major environments can be recognised in the Early

Eocene Taleh Zang Formation at the Maleh kuh section:

tidal flat, lagoon, shoal and open marine. These four

environments are subdivided into 10 facies (Figure 14).

The tidal flat (facies 1–4) environment is composed of

four facies, characterised by fine-grained matrix and lack

of fossil. The sediment in this environment is accumulated

in the inner ramp.

The lagoon environment (facies 5–6) mainly consists of

imperforate foraminifera including Orbitolites, alveolinids

Figure 14. Depositional model for the Lower Eocene platform carbonates of the Taleh Zang Formation at the Maleh kuh section.



and miliolids and finer grain matrix. These facies indicate a

low energy, upper photic and shallow-restricted lagoon

depositional environment. Low diversity implies the

restricted environment.

The shoal environment (facies 7 to 9) consists of

perforated and imperforated foraminifera in a grainstone

texture. The environment reveals three different facies,

which are separable from each other by their fossil content.

Leeward shoal is characterised by miliolids and peloids in

a grainstone matrix. The characteristics of the highest

energetic part of the shoal are the rounded and sorted

bioclast and grainstone matrix. Towards the open marine,

perforated foraminifera and imperforated foraminifera

(small robust Nummulites) occur together. Two latter

facies represent high diversity, which implies non-

restricted environment.

The open marine environment is represented by facies

10. The main feature of the open marine environment is

the dominance of perforated and hyaline larger foramini-

fera (Nummulites). In addition, the texture shows a

transition from grainstone to packstone to wackestone.

On the basis of facies property and interpretation, the

transitions in the open marine facies show a deepening

trend. The diversity in facies 9 is diverse and comes very

low in the deepest facies (facies 10), which implies that the

diversity in this facies has been strongly controlled and

limited by ecological factors (e.g. light and oxygen).

The gradual transitions between the facies, the absence

of facies that shows high gradient (e.g. slump), lack of

evidence of re-sediment low-stand deposits and the

absence of reef facies indicate a low gradient carbonate

ramp (Figure 14).

Due to facies analysis and foraminifera paleoecology,

the inner ramp and higher portions of the middle ramp

environments are present in the Taleh Zang Formation at

the Maleh kuh section. Inner ramp settings (between upper

shoreface and FWWB) are represented by facies 1 to 9,

and middle ramp settings (between FWWB and storm-

wave base with sediment reworking by storms) are

represented by facies 10.

As a matter of focusing on the shallow environments, it

is difficult or impossible to state that this ramp is distally

steepened or homoclinal. These results are quite same as the

paleoenvironmental model presented by Adabi et al. (2008),

which assumed a carbonate ramp for Early Eocene Taleh

Zang at type section; however, they presented Assilina

wackestone as deepest facies and ooid grainstone as shoal

environment, both of them were absent in our study sections.

Living larger foraminifera are restricted to shallow,

well-lit sea floors (Hottinger 1983; Hallock 1984), and a

climatic belt limited by the 168C isotherm in the coldest

month (Langer and Hottinger 2000). Larger foraminifera

can maintain themselves only in oligotrophic environ-

ments because they are housing symbionts (Hallock 1985).

The dominance of larger foraminifera in all recognised

facies indicates deposition within warm water and

oligotrophic conditions in the euphotic zone.

7. Facies changes across Paleocene–Eocene

Studied sections of the Taleh Zang Formation show clear

changes in facies and biota from the Upper Paleocene

Sarkan section to Lower Eocene Maleh kuh section. Lower

part of the Sarkan section is dominated by red algae and

coral colony and facies with restricted environment

properties, while the upper part of the section is

characterised by facies with great abundance of larger

foraminifera (Ranikothalia, Miscellanea, Nummulites) and

the absence of coralgal associations and corals. Different

depth-dependant larger foraminifera (Orbitolites,

Alveolina and Nummulites) that are suitable components

for paleoenvironment reconstruction dominate the Maleh

kuh section deposits. Due to these important changes, it is

necessary to apply subdivision, and it is compared with

the other studied area. Figure 15a shows the Paleocene–

Eocene reconstruction of Zagros collision and foreland

basin and the position of the study area, which is located

below 208 paleolatitude. In addition, Figure 15b shows

previously studied regions (circles number 1–17) and

the area of present study, marked by a star. Scheibner and

Speijer (2008) subdivided the platform settings according

to the paleolatitudes and defined the platforms at middle

paleolatitudes (above 308), intermediate paleolatitudes

(208–308) and low paleolatitudes (below 208). Intermedi-

ate and low paleolatitudes are located at the southern rim

of the Tethys. Scheibner et al. (2005) presented a three-

fold platform subdivision in the southern Tethys (Galala

Mountains, Egypt; 208N paleolatitude) across the Paleo-

cene/Eocene boundary: Platform stage I (58.0–56.2 Ma;

Coralgal platform), Platform stage II (56.2–55.5 Ma;

coralgal and first larger foraminiferal platform), Platform

stage III (55.5–55.0? Ma; 2. larger foraminiferal plat-

form). Using this subdivision, Taleh Zang Formation

(which is located below 208N paleolatitude) at the lower

part of the Sarkan section is similar to Platform stage I, and

the upper part of the Sarkan section is similar to Platform

stage II. The Maleh kuh section is similar to Platform stage

III (Figures 5 and 6).

Two middle latitude successions at Pyrenees and

northwestern Aderiatic Carbonate Platform (AdCP) were

studied by Scheibner et al. (2005) and Zamagni et al.

(2008), respectively. Scheibner et al. (2005) found

persistent corals in the Pyrenees throughout the entire

period of study. This does not hold for Egypt, where

coralgal associations disappeared in the Uppermost

Paleocene (Shallow Benthic Zone 4; SBZ4). At this

time larger foraminifera became common in both regions,

with Assilina dominant in the Pyrenees (Assilina beds,

Baceta et al. 2005), Ranikothalia and Miscellanea

forming shoals in Egypt (Scheibner et al. 2003). Zamagni



Figure 16. Biostratigraphy of the Taleh Zang Formation at the Maleh kuh section.

Figure 15. a. Paleocene–Eocene paleogeographic reconstruction of the Neo-Tethys area of Zagros collision and foreland basin (Heydari2008). Star shows location of the studied area. (b) Plate tectonic reconstruction of the Tethys (55 Ma) and locations of studied earlyPaleogene carbonate platforms, star shows the location of present study (Scheibner and Speijer 2008). T; Turkey. S; Sanandaj-Sirjan. L;Lut. AF; Afghanistan. ZFD; Zagros foredeep. I-P; India–Pakistan.



et al. (2008) found small benthic foraminifera dominance

in the Upper Paleocene (SBZ3) facies and almost entirely

absent of corals except for rare and small patches.

In addition, according to Babic and Zupanic (1981),

Drobne et al. (1988), Jurkovsek et al. (1996), Turnsek and

Drobne (1998), Turnsek and Kosir (2004) and Vlahovic

et al. (2005) during this stage, coralgal reefs and abundant

larger foraminifera were reported from Northern Adriatic

Platforms. Common larger benthic foraminifera in the

benthic communities of the Uppermost Paleocene (SBZ

4), with Assilina and orthophragminids being the most

abundant forms are often associated with red calcareous

algae and corals. The Early Eocene in all studied regions

is dominant by different groups of depth-dependant larger

foraminifera and devoid of corals; however, according to

Baceta et al. (2005) and Scheibner et al. (2007) in sections

of Pyrenees coral-associated facies types occur subordi-

nately. Thus, the two middle-latitude carbonate platforms

(AdCP and Pyrenees) were more similar to each other.

In comparison with the abundance of Ranikothalia and

Miscellanea (except occurrence of Nummulites) and the

absence of corals and coralgal associations in Uppermost

Paleocene, the same is true for two low latitude carbonate

platforms (Taleh Zang Formation and Galala Mountains/

Egypt). Consequently, as Zamagni et al. (2008)

concluded, these similarities suggest latitudinal effect on

the evolution of shallow-water benthic communities.

To better understand biostratigraphic framework and the

importance of facies changes in Taleh Zang Formation,

distribution of identified foraminifera is plotted in front of

the studied sections (Figures 16 and 17). Thus, platform

stages I and II were formed in SBZ3 and SBZ4 at Sarkan

section, respectively, and platform stage III was formed in

SBZ 6–7 at Maleh kuh section.

In summary, the evolution from the first platform stage

(dominated by coral reefs) to the second transitional

platform stage (characterised by larger foraminifera in low

latitudes and coral reefs in middle latitudes) to the third

platform stage, which is dominated by larger foraminifera

in all latitudes, is strongly dependent on the organism

Figure 17. Biostratigraphy of the Taleh Zang Formation at the Sarkan section.



distribution pattern of the two most important groups: corals

and larger foraminifera (Scheibner and Speijer 2008).

8. Conclusions

The Taleh Zang Formation represents sedimentation on a

carbonate ramp. Seventeen different microfacies were

recognised within the two studied sections (9 facies at the

Upper Paleocene Sarkan section and 10 at the Lower

Eocene Maleh kuh section), which are organised from

shallower to deeper parts.

The Upper Paleocene and Lower Eocene sediments are

characterised by well-pronounced changes from coralgal

and larger foraminifera shoal Paleocene facies to diverse

larger foraminifera Eocene facies. These changes are also

apparent in the other parts of the Tethys, particularly in

low latitudes (Egypt).

Acknowledgements

C. Scheibner, Jessica Z and S.J. Beavington-Penney are thankedfor critical reading of a previous version of this manuscript.Also A. Kheradmand is thanked for his kindly help to solvethe regional stratigraphy problems. We gratefully acknowledgeE. Heydari and H. Vaziri-Moghadam for critical comments onthe manuscript and M. Mirzaie for improving the English.

References

Adabi H, Zohdi A, Ghabeishavi A, Amiri-Bakhtiyar H. 2008.Applications of nummulitids and other larger benthic foraminiferain depositional environment and sequence stratigraphy: an examplefrom the Eocene deposits in Zagros Basin, SW Iran. Facies.54:499–512, doi:10.1007/s10347-008-0151-7.

Aguilera-Franco N, Hernandez-Romano U. 2004. Cenomanian–Turonianfacies succession in the Guerrero-Morelos Basin, Southern Mexico.Sediment Geol. 170:135–162.

Aigner T. 1985. Biofabrics as dynamic indicators in numrnuliteaccumulations. J Sediment Petrol. 55:131–134.

Ala MA. 1982. Chronology of bioclastic-corallinacean and migration ofhydrocarbons in Zagros sector of southwest Iran. Am Assoc Pet GeolBull. 66:1536–1542.

Alavi M. 2007. Structures of the Zagros Fold–Thrust belt in Iran. Am JSci. 307:1064–1095, doi:10.2475/09.2007.02.

Azizi H, Moinevaziri H. 2008. Review of the tectonic setting ofCretaceous to Quaternary volcanism in northwestern Iran. J Geodyn.47:167–179, doi:10.1016/j.jog.2008.12.002.

Babic L, Zupanic J. 1981. Various pore types in a Paleocene reef, Banja,Yugoslavia. In: Toomey DF, editor. European fossil reef models.SEPM Special Publication, vol. 30. Tulsa: SEPM. p. 473–482.

Baceta JI, Pujalte V, Bernaola G. 2005. Paleocene coralgal reefs of thewestern Pyrenean basin, northern Spain: new evidence supporting anearliest Paleogene recovery of reefal systems. PalaeogeogrPalaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 224:117–143.

Bains S, Corfield RM, Norris RD. 1999. Mechanisms of climate warmingat the end of the Paleocene. Science. 285:724–727.

Berberian M, King GCP. 1981. Towards a palaeogeography and tectonicof Iran. Can J Earth Sci. 18:210–265.

Bralower TJ. 2002. Evidence of surface water oligotrophy during thePaleocene–Eocene thermal maximum: nannofossil assemblage datafrom the Ocean Drilling Program Site 690, Maud Rise, Weddell Sea.Paleoceanography. 17:1023, doi:10.1029/2001PA000662.

Bralower TJ, Thomas E, Zachos JC. 1995. Late Paleocene to Eocenepaleoceanography of the equatorial Pacific Ocean: stable isotopes

recorded at Ocean Drilling Program Site 865. Allison GuyotPaleoceanogr. 19:841–865.

Crouch EM, Heilmann-Clausen C, Brinkhuis H, Morgans HEG, RogersKM, Egger H, Schmitz B. 2001. Global dinoflagellate eventassociated with the Late Paleocene thermal maximum. Geology.29:315–318.

Dickens GR. 2000. Methane oxidation during the Late Palaecoenethermal maximum. Bull Soc Geol Fr. 171:37–49.

Dickens GR, O’Neil JR, Rea DK, Owen RM. 1995. Dissociation ofoceanic methane hydrate as a cause of the carbon isotope excursionat the end of the Paleocene. Paleoceanography. 10:965–971.

Drobne K, Ogorelec B, Plenicar M, Zucchi-Stolfa ML, Turnsek D. 1988.Maastrichtian, Danian and Thanetian beds in Dolenja Vas (NWDinarides, Yugoslavia). Mikrofacies, foraminifers, rudists andcorals. Razprave. 29:147–224.

Dunham RJ. 1962. Classification of carbonate rocks according todepositional texture. Am Assoc Pet Geol Mem. 1:108–121.

Falcon NL. 1961. Major earth-flexturing in the Zagros Mountain ofsouthwest Iran. J Geol Soc Lond. 117:367–376.

Falcon NL. 1974. Southern Iran: Zagros Mountains. In: Spencer A, editor.Mesozoic–Cenozoic Orogenic Belts. London: Geological Society ofLondon, Special Publications, vol. 4. p. 199–211.

Flugel E. 1982. Microfacies analysis of limestone. New York: Springer.p. 633.

Flugel E. 2004. Microfacies analysis of limestone: analysis, interpretationand application. Berlin: Springer. p. 976.

Folk RL. 1962. Spectral subdivision of limestone types. In: HamWE, editor. Classification of carbonate rocks. AAPG Memoir, 1.p. 62–84.

Galeotti S, Kaminski M, Coccioni R, Speijer R. 2004. High-resolutiondeep-water agglutinated foraminiferal record across the Paleocene/Eocene transition in the Contessa Road Section (central Italy). In:Bubık M, Kaminski MA, editors. Proceedings of the SixthInternational Workshop on Agglutinated Foraminifera. GrzybowskiFoundation Special Publication, 8. p. 83–103.

Geel T. 2000. Recognition of stratigraphic sequences in carbonateplatform and slope deposits: empirical models based on microfaciesanalysis of Palaeogene deposits in southeastern Spain. PalaeogeogrPalaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 155:211–238, doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(99)00117-0.

Hallock P. 1984. Distribution of larger foraminiferal assemblages on twoPacific coral reefs. J Foramin Res. 14:250–261.

Hallock P. 1985. Why are larger Foraminifera large? Paleobiology.11:195–208.

Hallock P, Glenn EC. 1986. Larger foraminifera: a tool forpaleoenvironmental analysis of Cenozoic depositional facies.Palaios. 1:55–64.

Hardie LA. 1986. Ancient carbonate tidal flat deposits. Colorado SchoolMines Quart. 81:37–57.

Hempton MR. 1987. Constraints on Arabian plate motion and extensionalhistory of the Red Sea. Tectonics. 6:687–705.

Hernandez-Romano U. 1999. Facies stratigraphy and diagenesis of theCenomanian–Turonian of the Guerrero-Morelos platform, southernMexico: reading, postgraduate research institute for sedimentology[PhD thesis]. [UK]: University of Reading. p. 322

Heydari E. 2008. Tectonics versus eustatic control on supersequences ofthe Zagros Mountains of Iran. Tectonophysics. 451:56–70.

Hohenegger J, Yordanova E, Nakano Y, Tatzreiter F. 1999. Habitats oflarger foraminifera on the reef slope of Sesoko Island, Okinawa,Japan. Mar Micropaleontol. 36:109–168. doi:10.1016/S0377-8398(98)00030-9.

Homke S, Verges J, Serra-Kiel J, Bernaola G, Garces M, Verdu IM,Karpuz R, Sharp I, Goodarzi MH. 2006. Cenezoic evolution of theearly Zagros foreland basin in the Lurestan Province (NE Zagros).Insights from biostratigraphy of the Amiran-Kashkan detriticsequence and new fission tracks dating. Geophysical ResearchAbstracts. Vol. 8,07800.

Homke S, Verges J, Serra-Kiel J, Bernaola G, Sharp I, Garces M,Montero-Verdu I, Karpuz R, Goodarzi MH. 2009. Late Cretaceous-Paleocene formation of the proto-Zagros foreland basin, LurestanProvince, SW Iran. Geol Soc Am Bull. 121(7–8):963–978.



Hottinger L. 1983. Processes determining the distribution oflarger foraminifera in space and time. Utrecht Micropal Bull.30:239–253.

Hottinger L. 1997. Shallow benthic foraminiferal assemblages as signalsfor depth of their deposition and their limitations. Bulletin de laSociete Geologique de France. 168:491–505.

Hottinger L, Drobne K. 1980. Early Tertiary conical imperforateforaminifera. Razprave, Slovenska Akademia Znanosti in Umet-nostni (Ljubljiana). 22:186–276.

James GA, Wynd JG. 1965. Stratigraphic nomenclature of Iranian oilconsortium agreement area. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull. 49:2182–2245.

Jurkovsek B, Toman M, Ogorelec B, Sribar L, Drobne K, Poljak M,Sribar L. 1996. Geological Map of the Southern Part of the Trieste-Komen Plateau. Institut za geologijo, geotehniko in geofiziko,Ljubljana. p. 1–143

Katz ME, Pak DK, Dickens GR, Miller KG. 1999. The source and fate ofmassive carbon input during the latest Paleocene thermal maximum.Science. 286:1531–1533.

Kelly DC. 2002. Response of Antarctic (ODP Site 690) planktonicforaminifera to the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum: faunalevidence for ocean/climate change. Paleoceanography. 17:1071,doi:10.1029/2002PA000761.

Kennett JP, Stott LD. 1991. Abrupt deep-sea warming, paleoceano-graphic changes and benthic extinctions at the end of the Palaeocene.Nature. 353:225–229.

Koch PL, Zachos JC, Gingerich P. 1992. Correlation between isotoperecords in marine and continental carbon reservoirs near thePalaeocene/Eocene boundary. Nature. 358:319–322.

Langer MR, Hottinger L. 2000. Biogeography of selected ‘larger’foraminifera. Micropaleontology. 46(Suppl. 1):105–127.

Lasemi Y. 1995. Platform carbonates of the Upper Jurassic MozduranFormation in the Kopet Dagh Basin, NE Iran-facies, palaeoenviron-ments and sequences. Sediment Geol. 99:151–164.

Macleod N, Ortiz N, Fefferman N, Clyde W, Schulter C, MacLean J.2002. Phenotypic response of foraminifera to episodes of globalenvironmental change. In: Culver SJ, Rawson P, editors. BioticResponse to Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.p. 51–78.

Maghfori Moghaddam I, Jalali M. 2004. Stratigraphy and paleoenviron-ment surveys of Taleh-Zang Formation in south and south west ofKhorramabad. J Sci Al-Zahra Univ. 17:34–46.

Mahboubi A, Moussavi-Harami R, Lasemi Y, Brenner LR. 2001.Sequence stratigraphy and sea level history of the Upper Paleocenestrata in the Kopet-Dagh Basin, northeastern Iran. AAPG.85:839–859.

Minnery GA. 1990. Crustose coralline algae from the Flower GardenBanks, northwestern Gulf of Mexico: controls on distribution andgrowth morphology. J Sediment Petrol. 60:992–1007.

Motiei H. 1993. Stratigraphy of Zagros. In: Treatise of geology of Iran.Tehran: Iran Geological Survey Publication, 1: 281–289.

Motiei H. 1995. Petroleum geology of Zagros. Tehran: Geological Surveyof Iran. 1009 pp.

Moussavian E. 1984. Die Gosau-und Alttertiar-Gerolle der Angerberg-Schichten (Hoheres Oligozan, Unterinntal, Nordliche Kalkalpen).Facies. 10:1–86.

Murris RJ. 1980. Middle East: stratigraphic evolution and oil habitat.Am Assoc Petrol Geol Bull. 64:597–618.

Norris RD, Rohl U. 1999. Carbon cycling and chronology of climatewarming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition. Nature. 401:775–778.

Perrin C. 1992. Signification Ecologique des foraminiferes acervulini-deset leur role dans la formation de facies recifaux et organogenesdepuis le Paleocene [Ecological significance of foraminiferaacervulinideset their role in the formation of biogenic reef faciesand from the Paleocene]. Geobios. 25:725–751.

Pujalte V, Payros A, Apellaniz E. 2009. Climate and biota of the EarlyPaleogene: recent advances and new perspectives. Geol Acta. 7:1–9,doi:10.1344/105.000000283.

Racz L. 1979. Paleocene carbonate development of Ras al Hamra. OmanBull Cent Rech Explor Prod Elf-Aquitaine. 3:767–779.

Rasser MW. 2000. Coralline red algal limestones of the Late Eocenealpine foreland basin in upper Austria: component analysis, faciesand palecology. Facies. 42:59–92.

Rasser MW, Piller WE. 1997. Depth distribution of calcareous encrustingassociations in the Northern Red Sea (Safaga, Egypt) and theirgeological implications. Proceedings of the 8th International CoralReef Symposium, p. 743–748.

Rasser MW, Scheibner C, Mutti M. 2005. A paleoenvironmental standardsection for Early Ilerdian tropical carbonate factories (Corbieres,France; Pyrenees, Spain). Facies. 51:217–232, doi:10.1007/s10347-005-0070-9.

Reid RP, Macintyre IG. 1988. Foraminiferal–algal nodules from theEastern Caribbean: growth history and implications on the value ofnodules as paleoenvironmental indicators. Palaios. 3:424–435.

Riding R. 1999. The term stromatolite: towards an essential definition.Lethaia. 32:321–330.

Rohl U, Bralower TJ, Norris RD, Wefer G. 2000. A new chronology forthe Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum and its environmentalimplications. Geology. 28:927–930.

Scheibner C, Rasser MW, Mutti M. 2007. The Campo section (Pyrenees,Spain) revised: implications for changing carbonate assemblagesacross the Paleocene–Eocene boundary. Palaeogeogr PalaeoclimatolPalaeoecol. 248:145–168.

Scheibner C, Reijmer JJG, Marzouk AM, Speijer RP, Kuss J. 2003. Fromplatform to basin: the evolution of a Paleocene carbonate margin(Eastern Desert, Egypt). Int J Earth Sci. 92:624–640.

Scheibner C, Speijer RP. 2008. Late Paleocene–Early Eocene Tethyancarbonate platform evolution – a response to long- and short-termpaleoclimatic change. Earth Sci Rev. 90:71–102, doi:10.1016/j.ears-cirev.2008.07.002.

Scheibner C, Speijer RP, Marzouk A. 2005. Larger foraminiferal turnoverduring the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum and paleoclimaticcontrol on the evolution of platform ecosystems. Geology. 33:493–496.

Sengor AMC. 1990. A new model for the Late Paleozoic–Mesozoictectonic evolution of Iran and implication for Oman. In: RoberstonAHF, Searl MP, Ries AC, editors. The geology and tectonics of theOman Region. London: Geological Society of London, SpecialPublication, 49. p. 797–831.

Sherkati S, Letouzey J. 2004. Variation of structural style and basinevolution in the central Zagros (Izeh zone and Dezful Embayment),Iran. Mar Pet Geol. 21:535–554.

Specht RW, Brenner RL. 1979. Storm-wave genesis of bioclasticcarbonates in Upper Jurassic epicontinental mudstones, East-centralWyoming. J Sediment Petrol. 49:1307–1322.

Steinhauff DM, Walker KR. 1996. Sequence stratigraphy of anapparently non-cyclic carbonate succession: recognizing subaerialexposure in a largely subtidal, Middle Ordovician stratigraphicsequence in eastern Tennessee. In: Witzke GA, Ludvingson JE, DayBJ, editors. Paleozoic sequence stratigraphy: views from the NorthAmerican Craton. Special Paper – Geological Society of America,306. p. 87–115.

Stocklin J. 1968. Structural history and tectonics of Iran: a review.Am Assoc Petrol Geol Bull. 52:1229–1258.

Taheri A, Vaziri-Moghaddam H, Seyrafian A. 2008. Relationshipsbetween foraminiferal assemblages and depositional sequences inJahrum Formation, Ardal area (Zagros Basin, SW Iran). Hist Biol.20(3):191–201.

Thomas E. 1998. Biogeography of the Late Paleocene benthicforaminiferal extinction. In: Aubry MP, Lucas S, Berggren WA,editors. Late Paleocene–Early Eocene Climatic and Biotic events inthe Marine and Terrestrial records. New York: Columbia UniversityPress. p. 214–243.

Turnsek D, Drobne K. 1998. Paleocene corals from the northern AdriaticPlatform. In: Hottinger L, Drobne K, editors. Paleogene ShallowBenthos of the Tethys 2. Dela-Opera SAZU 4. Razprave. Ljubljana:Slovenian Academy of Science and Arts. p. 129–154.

Turnsek D, Kosir A. 2004. Bacarella vipavica n. gen., n. sp. (Anthozoa,Scleractina) from reefal blocks in lower Eocene carbonate megabedsin the Vipava Valley (SW Slovenia). Razprave. 45:145–169.

Vecchio E, Hottinger L. 2007. Agglutinated conical foraminifera from theLower–Middle Eocene of the Trentinara Formation (southern Italy).Facies. 53:509–533, doi:10.1007/s10347-007-0112-6.



Vlahovic I, Tisljar J, Velic I, Maticec D. 2005. Evolution of theAdriatic carbonate platform: palaeogeography, main events anddepositional dynamics. Palaegeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 220:333–360.

Wilson JL. 1975. Carbonate facies in geological history. Berlin: Springer.p. 471.

Wray JL. 1977. Calcareous algae. Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 185.Wynd JG. 1965. Biofacies of Iranian Oil Consortium Agreement Area.

IOOC Rep 1082 (unpublished)Zamagni J, Mutti M, Kosir A. 2008. Evolution of shallow benthic

communities during the Late Paleocene–Earliest Eocene transitionin the Northern Tethys (SW Slovenia). Facies. 54:25–43.



bagherpour and vaziri-2012-facies, paleoenvironment, carbonate platform and facies changes across...

Documents