Structure and Evolution of the Neogene Guercif Basin at the Junction of the Middle Atlas Mountains and the

Rif Thrust Belt, Morocco1

Francisco Gomez,2 Muawia Barazangi,2 and Ahmed Demnati3

ABSTRACT The Guercif basin of northern Morocco occupies a 50 60 km area where the transpressional Middle Atlas mountains terminate and abut the Rif thrust belt. Analysis of over 800 km of 2-D (twodimensional) seismic reflection profiles and eight exploratory wells, in combination with existing geological data, suggests a late Miocene episode of extension (4%, or 1.7 km, maximum) and a subsequent episode of contraction since the end of the Miocene. Most of the late Miocene deposition was concentrated in a narrow graben (herein referred to as the Guercif graben), which contrasts with the wider physiographic expression of the basin today. Geohistory analysis indicates that tectonic subsidence persisted until the Messinian, and sediment loading continued to drive subsidence even after extension stopped. Timing constraints demonstrate the contemporaneity of the Guercif graben and west-southwestvergent thrust tectonics of the Rif thrust belt. Similar timing and proximity with the Rif, as well as the graben geometry, suggest that extension in the Guercif basin, in addition to other smaller extensional basins in the northern Middle Atlas region adjacent to the Rif, may represent the distal effects of a broad lateral shear zone bounding the thrust belt.

The Neogene Guercif basin is superimposed on the Mesozoic Middle Atlas rift, which experienced basin inversion during the Cenozoic, and seismic reflection interpretations in the southern Guercif basin depict old Mesozoic rift faults reactivated as reverse faults. Unconformities illustrate that the uplift of the Middle Atlas appears to be primarily a late Cenozoic phenomenon. The Guercif basin offers a special opportunity for petroleum exploration within an aborted rift basin such as the Middle Atlas. Mesozoic source rocks in the Middle Atlas may have been sufficiently buried beneath Neogene basin sediments to reach maturity, and the late Cenozoic timing of contraction can produce suitable structural traps. INTRODUCTION The Guercif basin of northern Morocco contains a record of the interactions between the late Cenozoic intracontinental deformation of the Middle Atlas Mountains and the thin-skinned thrust tectonics of the Rif Mountains. The Guercif basin appears abruptly along-strike to northeast of the Middle Atlas Mountains (Figure 1). Similar to the Middle Atlas, the Neogene Guercif basin is superimposed on an early Mesozoic rift basin; however, in contrast to late Cenozoic uplift of the Middle Atlas fold belt (e.g., Gomez et al., 1998), the Guercif basin experienced considerable subsidence during the late Neogene and Quaternary. The adjacent Rif thrust belt experienced several episodes of shortening (e.g., Morel, 1989; Frizon de Lamotte et al., 1991) that coincide temporally with the Guercif basins development. Thus, the Guercif basin may provide a useful example for understanding the interactions between an interplate thrust belt (the Rif) and adjacent continental (foreland) deformation (the Middle Atlas). The local tectonic complexity found in the Guercif basin may also improve the prospects for petroleum exploration in these regions. The Guercif basin performed a pivotal role in the late Neogene history of the Mediterranean region.
AAPG Bulletin, V. 84, No. 9 (September 2000), P. 13401364.

Copyright 2000. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. 1 Manuscript received March 11, 1999; revised manuscript received February 23, 2000; final acceptance February 28, 2000. 2Institute for the Study of the Continents, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853; e-mail: fgomez@geology.cornell.edu 3Office National de Rchrche et dxploitations Petrolires, B.P. 8030, Rabat, Morocco. The development of the manuscript benefited from helpful suggestions and informal reviews provided by G. Brew, E. Gomez, R. Allmendinger, T. Jordan, A. Calvert, D. Seber, and A. Al-Lazki. We thank M. Dahmani, A. Er-Raji, M. Morabet, M. Zizi, and H. Achnin for their helpful discussions in Morocco. We thank W. Beauchamp, J. McBride, and C. Morley for constructive reviews. Special thanks to W. Krijgsman for providing an advanced copy of his article, which contained valuable age constraints. This research was supported by NSF grant EAR-9627806. INSTOC contribution number 253.

1340

Gomez et al.

1341

10 W 36 N
500 km

Mediterranean (Alboran) Sea

Internal Rif Central Rif TF

Iberia

34

N. A

a fric

RB

External Rif SB TMA

N

Figures 2&5
Taza GB
Hig la hP tea u

Atlas system Rabat Alpine chain Casablanca

FM

32

ic nt n tla a A ce O

Moroc

can M

eseta

MB

High Atl

as

Neogene basins Rif Mountains

200 km

Atlas ranges

Figure 1Map of northern Morocco depicting the spatial relationship of the Guercif basin to other major Cenozoic tectonic elements of Morocco, including the Rif and Atlas mountains. Box denotes the study area shown in Figures 2 and 5. GB = Guercif basin, FMA = folded Middle Atlas, TMA = tabular Middle Atlas, NMAF = north Middle Atlas fault, SB = Saiss basin, RB = Rharb basin, MB = Missour basin, TF = Cape Trois Fourches. Inset map shows the spatial extent of the intracontinental Atlas system and the interplate Alpine mountain chains of the western Mediterranean region.

Prior to the opening of the Strait of Gibraltar, the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea were connected via the Rifian corridor (e.g., Benson et al., 1991). This seaway, which flowed through what is now the Guercif basin, constricted during the Messinian (7.255.2 Ma). Following closure of this narrow seaway, the Messinian desiccation event of the Mediterranean Sea ensued (this event is also know as the Messinian salinity crisis) (e.g., Hsu et al., 1973). Recent chronological results of Hilgen et al. (1995) constrain this event to occur between 5.5 and 5.3 Ma. If the competing tectonic signals of neighboring mountain chains are distinguishable, then the stratigraphic record in the Guercif basin should contain a potentially useful record of the tectonic events that were directly responsible for the isolation of the Mediterranean. We present new constraints on the structure and Neogene tectonic history of the Guercif basin; our constraints are based on the analysis of geophysical data in combination with existing geological information. An extensive database of subsurface information helps to constrain the basin geometry, timing of events, structural styles, and approximate magnitudes of deformation and subsidence, and our results permit further consideration of the basins role in the regional tectonic scheme. We document a two-stage basin history since the late Miocene involving initial development as a narrow graben followed by deposition synchronous with weak basin inversion tectonics. We interpret these results as reflecting the influence on the African

AF

foreland of different tectonic episodes in the Rif mountains. GEOLOGICAL SETTING The North African crust bears the scars of repeated deformations imparted since at least the Paleozoic; therefore, studying the Cenozoic tectonics of Morocco involves considering structural elements inherited from prior events. Key structural elements include the Hercynian fold belt that can be traced across the present-day Moroccan Meseta (Figure 1). Subsequently, during the PermianTriassic break-up of Pangea, the Atlas rift system developed. This included the initiation of the transtensional Middle Atlas rift basin in the northeastern part of the present-day Middle Atlas and Guercif basin (Brede et al., 1992). With the opening of the central Atlantic Ocean and the initiation of sea-floor spreading during the Early Jurassic, Atlas rifting essentially ceased. After this time, a general tectonic quiescence persisted until the late Mesozoic, although minor episodes of uplift have been interpreted to punctuate this time (e.g., Monbaron, 1982; Brede et al., 1992). During the Late Cretaceous, convergence between Africa and Eurasia began (Dewey et al., 1989). This convergence ultimately resulted in building the Alpine mountain belts encompassing the Mediterranean region. Convergent interplate processes also reactivated the crustal weaknesses of the Atlas paleorifts, resulting in the Cenozoic

1342

Neogene Guercif Basin

4 W

3 30'

External Rif
34 30'

0 km

20

ATM-1 AKL-101

JG

84

GR

-05
GRF-1 MSD-1

GR

-01
TAF-1X

T
84 GR

G
TAF-2

GR-09
KDH-1

02

TAF-1

JA

34 N

GR-2

Quaternary Late Messinian - Pliocene Messinian

Quaternary volcanic Neogene volcanic exploratory well

Mid Miocene - Tortonian

Middle Atlas

Hi

gh

Pl

a ate

Mesozoic & Paleozoic frontal thrust of External Rif seismic reflection line

Figure 2Map of the Guercif basin (see Figure 1 for location) illustrating the Neogene geology (after Benzaquen, 1965) and the database used in this study. More than 800 km of seismic reflection data are shown covering most of the Guercif basin. T = Taza, G = Guercif, M = Msoun, JG = Jebel Guillez, JA = Jebel Ahmar. Large star denotes the approximate region of the surface stratigraphic section described by Krijgsman et al. (1999).

Atlas mountain chains. The basin inversion processes are well illustrated by seismic reflection data in the Missour basin (Beauchamp et al., 1996) and High Atlas regions (Beauchamp et al., 1999). Two prominent tectonic elements neighbor the Guercif basin: the Rif thrust belt (part of the western Alpine collisional belt) and the Middle Atlas mountains located in the foreland of the Rif thrust belt. The Rif mountains can be divided into three structural zones (Figure 1) reflecting different episodes of tectonic transport (Morel, 1989; Frizon de Lamotte et al., 1991): the internal Rif and flysch zone (early Miocene west vergence), the central Rif (middle to late Miocene west-southwest vergence), and the external Rif (late MiocenePliocene south vergence). The paleostress history of northern Morocco (e.g., Morel, 1989) documents a progressive change in the regional stress field involving a

reorientation of the maximum horizontal compression from northeast-southwest to north-northwestsouth-southeast (and thus more consistent with the relative plate convergence). In the eastern external Rif, this change occurred during the Messinian, while in the western external Rif, westsouthwestward thrusting persisted through the Pliocene (Morel, 1989; Morley, 1992). Although minor uplift of the Middle Atlas may have occurred earlier, the main episode of uplift appears to begin during the Neogene (e.g., Charrire, 1984; Morel et al., 1993). The Middle Atlas can be divided into two provinces: the folded Middle Atlas and the weakly deformed tabular Middle Atlas (Figure 1). The northeast-southweststriking Middle Atlas system is oriented obliquely within the late Cenozoic continental stress field of Morocco (north-northwestsouth-southeast oriented) (e.g., Galindo-Zaldivar et al., 1993), resulting

Gomez et al.

1343

Lithology

depositional environment

Quat.

Pliocene

conglomerate cross-bedded fluvial sandstone sandstone Ostreidae-bearing horizon calcareous mudstone

Figure 3Generalized Neogene stratigraphic column of the Guercif basin. During the early Tortonian, the depositional environment rapidly changed from continental through shallow marine to deep marine. Shallowing of the basin also begins abruptly during the Messinian. Adapted from Bernini et al. (1992, 1994a).

shallow marine

5.2 Ma

7.2 Ma
sandy mudstone

Tortonian

Messinian

deep marine

Age

continental

muddy sandstone limestone

dolomite

PreTertiary

10.5 Ma

100 m

in a transpressional system referred to as the Middle Atlas shear zone. Fault kinematic evidence from the central Middle Atlas suggests that oblique deformation has been partitioned during the late Neogene as follows. Strike-slip faulting occurs along the north Middle Atlas fault (Figure 1) and within the tabular Middle Atlas, and southeastdirected thrusting is observed in the Middle Atlas fold belt (Gomez et al., 1998). The regional geology of the Guercif basin was mapped by Benzaquen (1965) (Figure 2), and subsequent work by Colletta (1977) and Bernini et al. (1992) further defined the Neogene sedimentary geology. The recent stratigraphic improvements also benefited from improved chronological constraints based on magnetostratigraphy and biostratigraphy (Krijgsman et al., 1999). The generalized Neogene

stratigraphy of the Guercif basin as described by Bernini et al. (1992, 1994a) is illustrated in Figure 3. The base of the stratigraphic succession contains continental and shallow-marine conglomerates and sandstones (middle Miocene(?)Tortonian). The succession rapidly changes upward into deeper marine calcareous mudstones (Tortonian). In the southern Guercif basin near the boundary with the Middle Atlas, these pelagic sediments are interfingered with clastic lenses interpreted as turbidites. Upward in the section, these strata change to sandstones deposited in shallow-marine and lagoonal environments (Messinian), and, ultimately, strata consist of fluvial conglomerates and lacustrine limestone. Previous geophysical studies illuminated some of the Guercif basins structural aspects. In a subsurface study using seismic reflection and well data,

1344

Neogene Guercif Basin

Zizi (1996a, b) showed examples of Neogene extensional structures; however, Zizi primarily focused on the Mesozoic rift basin, and most of the data used in that study were located outside the actual Neogene depocenter. In another study, Bouguer gravity data were analyzed by Saaidi (1996), who used derivatives of the gravity anomalies to map the extent of known and possible salt diapirs, most of which are located primarily on the southeastern side of the Guercif basin. Recent mobilization of some of these diapirs is suggested from field observations documenting locally chaotic structures involving upper Miocene and Pliocene strata (e.g., Colletta, 1977). Late MiocenePliocene shortening directions determined from fault and fracture analyses in the Guercif basin show a general northwest-southeast orientation (e.g., Bernini et al., 1994a, b; Colletta, 1977). These directions are similar to observations from the folded Middle Atlas (e.g., Gomez et al., 1996; Morel et al., 1993). Obliquity with respect to the north-northwestsouth-southeastoriented regional 1 in northern Morocco suggests a partitioning of deformation within the Middle Atlas/ Guercif basin system. Late Cenozoic volcanism of the Guercif basin was most recently studied by Hernandez and Bellon (1985), who demonstrated two suites that vary with time. Potassic (shoshonitic) volcanism occurred in the northern Guercif basin at Jebel Guillez (Figure 2) from the late Tortonian through the middle Pliocene. This was followed during the Pliocene and Quaternar y by alkali volcanism around Jebel Guillez and in the southern part of the basin. The data used herein illustrate two distinct extensional systems within the Guercif basin: a Mesozoic rift system and a smaller Neogene graben localized in the northwestern half of the Guercif basin. To avoid confusion, we believe it is helpful to clarify and standardize some nomenclature. The name Guercif basin refers to the present-day, physiographically expressed basin. We refer to the Mesozoic rift system (including the part in the Guercif basin) as the Middle Atlas rift. The smaller Neogene extensional system is labeled as the Guercif graben. DATA We have interpreted more than 800 km of 2-D (two-dimensional) seismic reflection and well data (Figure 2) made available for this study by the Office National de Rchrche et xploitation Petrolires (ONAREP), the Moroccan national petroleum company. Several seismic reflection surveys have focused on the Guercif basin, most

notably those taken during 1977, 1984, and 1985. Data quality varies, particularly for the older surveys; the more recent data (1984 and 1985) are 48fold, whereas older data are 24-fold. Both migrated and unmigrated seismic reflection data have been used in mapping structures, generating structural cross sections, and constructing isopach maps. Constraints for seismic reflection interpretations are provided by surface tie-ins with available geological maps (e.g., Benzaquen, 1965; Bernini et al., 1994b) and from well data. Several exploratory wells have also been drilled in the Guercif basin (Figure 2), penetrating into Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata. The GRF-1 well penetrated nearly 2 km of Neogene and Quaternary strata, whereas other wells such as TAF-1X, containing less than 100 m of Cenozoic strata, are clearly located outside the Neogene basin. These wells provided critical depth and lithological constraints on the seismic reflection interpretations. Sonic logs of wells GRF-1, MSD-1, and KDH-1 were digitized and used to construct synthetic seismograms that were correlated with seismic reflection profiles. Sonic velocities were averaged over key stratigraphic intervals to derive interval velocities used in depth conversion of seismic interpretations. Additional interval velocities were provided from the processing parameters of the seismic reflection data. Neogene stage boundaries defined by micropaleontology provide first-order age constraints in the well logs. Further age constraints are provided by the new stratigraphy (Bernini et al., 1992), which can be tied from the surface using seismic reflection data. Herein, we follow the stage boundaries and chronostratigraphy presented by Krijgsman et al. (1999). In addition to the micropaleontological age constraints, the GRF-1 well contains a volcaniclastic layer within the Tortonian section. The volcanic rocks are basaltic and andesitic in composition and are probably sourced from the shoshonitic volcanism at Jebel Guillez to the north [4.98 Ma according to Hernandez and Bellon (1985)]. The biostratigraphic constraints are consistent with the lower boundary on the age range of the volcanism. Age constraints permit the use of the wells and stratigraphic section for analyzing the subsidence history of the basin. In addition to borehole data, we have also used a detailed stratigraphic section from the Zobzit region (see Figure 2 for approximate location) in the southern Guercif basin (Krijgsman et al., 1999). Relatively high chronological resolution of upper Miocene and Pliocene strata is provided by the magnetic polarity time scale, much higher than the paleontological constrains in the well data. In addition, Kr ijgsman et al. (1999) presented paleobathymetry constraints based on micropaleontology.

Gomez et al.

1345

STRUCTURE AND TIMING OF THE GUERCIF BASIN A correlation of well logs demonstrates some gross structural features of the Guercif basin area (Figure 4). The northwest-southeast well correlation (Figure 4a) depicts the Neogene depocenter as located between the town of Msoun and the TAF1X well. The isopach maps presented in following figures provide a better view of the lateral variations in the thickness of the Neogene basin fill. In the seismic ref lection data, two classes of faults are distinguished: (1) Mesozoic normal faults affecting Triassic and Lower Jurassic strata and (2) Tortonian normal faults that offset the Mesozoic Cenozoic unconformity. Based on the growth of compressional folds and associated onlap relations above both types of normal faults, there is evidence for a younger, post-Tortonian contractional reactivation of these faults (inversion tectonics). Examples of all of these structures are shown in the following sections. These faults and Neogene folds were correlated between seismic lines to construct the structural map shown in Figure 5. In general, folds in the Guercif basin trend northeast-southwest, parallel to the structural grain of the Middle Atlas mountains (Figure 5). The map interpretation depicts Tortonian extensional structures primarily concentrated in the northwestern half of the physiographic basin, suggesting a noteworthy difference between the physiographic basin and the Neogene depocenter. In contrast, faults constituting the Mesozoic rift system are mapped farther toward the southeast. A broad anticlinorium trends northeast from the northern Middle Atlas (Jebel Ahmar) and continues beyond Msoun (Figure 5). This structure, herein referred to as the Jebel AhmarMsoun arch, is one of the four main anticlinal ridges reported by Colo (1964) to span the length of the Middle Atlas mountains. Comparison of wells west and east of the Jebel AhmarMsoun arch suggests thicker Mesozoic stratigraphic sections beneath the Guercif basin to the east (Figure 4a); therefore, the Jebel AhmarMsoun arch appears to approximate the northwest boundar y of the early Mesozoic depocenter in the northern Middle Atlas/Guercif basin region. Farther southwest, the arch trends into the north Middle Atlas fault zone (Figure 1), and perhaps the arch represents a structural continuation of that fault zone. The Northern Part of the Basin Tortonian normal faults in the northwestern area of the Guercif basin are well expressed in seismic

reflection data (Figure 6). Bright reflectors characteristic of the MesozoicNeogene unconformity display individual fault throws of up to 600 ms (800 m for an interval velocity of 2500 m/s). These Tortonian normal faults correlate between neighboring seismic lines, suggesting approximately northeast-southweststriking faults (Figure 5). Lower Tortonian strata thicken toward the footwall and truncate against the fault (Figures 6, 7). Due to poor imaging below the Mesozoic unconformity, it remains unclear whether these Neogene normal faults are reactivated structures inherited from early Mesozoic rifting. Upper Tortonian strata cap the northeast-striking normal faults and show no signs of synsedimentary fault movement, such as stratigraphic truncation or thickening across the fault (Figure 6). This implies that extension ceased during the late Tortonian. Two anticlinal folds in Figure 6 provide evidence of post-Tortonian contraction. The northwestern anticline (Figure 7) has developed above a grabenbounding normal fault, suggesting that contractional reactivation of this fault has produced the fold. Onlapping strata constrain the initiation of uplift, and unconformities within the Messinian and Pliocene strata suggest two pulses of contraction and growth for this particular structure (Figure 7). A contractional episode occurring since the Messinian is also supported by paleostress analyses (e.g., Colletta, 1977). The seismic reflection data show that significant thicknesses of Messinian and Pliocene strata accumulated contemporaneously with contraction. The Neogene strata also appear to thin toward the west and onlap the Msoun arch, suggesting geologically recent growth of the arch. A line drawing interpretation of two seismic reflection profiles (including that shown in Figure 6) depicts a graben approximately 20 km in width (Figure 8a). Neogene strata are well imaged, and the lines tie together near GRF-1. A prominent structure within the Tortonian graben is the Bou Mkhareg anticline [following the nomenclature of Colletta (1977)], penetrated by both the GRF-1 and MSD-1 wells (Figure 5). Onlap of early Tortonian strata onto this structure (Figure 8a) is interpreted to ref lect the rotation of a fault-bounded block within the graben. The geometries of Neogene strata (seismic reflections) from this composite profile are used to define depositional sequences. Onlapping and truncated reflections define stratigraphic sequence boundaries, and these geometric relationships and timing constraints were used to construct a chronostratigraphic diagram (Wheeler, 1958) depicting temporal and spatial patterns of deposition across the graben (Figure 8b). Five sequences are defined. The lower two (N1 and N2) are synextensional. The base of N1 (early

(a) External Rif

-1

Guercif Basin
10 1 X -1 TA F1

High Plateau
SE
TA F2 TA F1

NW

AT M

AK L-

Msoun

SD

Guercif

Depth (m)

ntal t

hrust

sea level

Rif fro

-1000

-2000

PreRif nappe

Neogene

N5 (Messinian Pliocene) N4 (Messinian) N1-3 (Tortonian early Messinian) Neogene (undifferentiated) Kimmeridgian Bathonian-Oxfordian Bajocian Toarcian lower Lias Triassic Paleozoic

-3000

VE = 20:1 0 km 20
-1 -1

(b)
F1 SD KD M G

S 2.1 2.4 sea level 4.2

Depth (m)

2.0 2.3

2.7 -1000 4.3 -2000 4.9

T

4.5

External Rif
AKL-101 ATM-1

GRF-1 MSD-1

Lower Middle Jurassic Jurassic

TAF-1X TAF-2

KDH-1

TAF-1

-3000
High Plateau Middle Atlas
0 km 20

Figure 4Well correlation diagrams across the Guercif basin with surface topography (see also Figure 2). (a) The northwest-southeast profile depicts the Neogene Guercif basin confined between Msoun and the TAF-1X well. (b) The north-northeastsouth-southwest profile suggests younger subsidence in the north than in the south. Bold numbers on the north-northeastsouth-southwest profile indicate interval velocities (km/s) derived from sonic logs. Northeastward thickening of Tortonian strata suggested by the well correlation is, in part, artificial. Well KDH-1 was located on a structural high outside of the Neogene depocenter, whereas GRF-1 and MSD-1 were drilled within the depocenter. Neogene units N1N3, N4, and N5 are defined based on seismic reflection data. Inset depicts the locations of the well correlation profiles.

source reservoir seal

4 W

3 30'

External Rif
0 km 20

34 30'

JG

M
Fig .8

T
2a

JM

Fig. 6
G Fig ure 1

JA

BN

Fig u re 1

BM

2b
fault Tortonian normal fault

34 N

Fig. 10
. 11 Fig
A HR

reverse fault

Cenozoic folds

Gomez et al.

Middle Atlas

gh Hi

Pla

u tea

anticline syncline

"inverted" Mesozoic normal fault Mesozoic normal fault

1347

Figure 5Structural map of the Guercif basin based on integrating seismic reflection interpretations and available surface geologic information (see Figure 1 for location). Heavy lines denote the locations of profiles shown in subsequent figures. Sections for Figures 6 and 8 and Figure 10 are located along segments of the regional profiles in Figure 12a and 12b, respectively. Dashed black lines indicated buried faults. Most of the Neogene extensional structures are located in the northwestern region of the Guercif basin, whereas Mesozoic extensional elements are distributed much farther east. JMA = Jebel AhmarMsoun Arch, JA = Jebel Ahmar, JG = Jebel Guillez, BMA = Bou Mkhareg anticline, BNA = Bled Marhrane anticline, HRA = Haloua-Richa anticline. The geological units, abbreviations for towns, and other symbols are the same as in Figure 2.

1348

Neogene Guercif Basin

NW
Msoun Arch

84GR-05
BMA latest Messinian - Pliocene mid Messinian

SE
GRF-1

0.0

(s) 1.0 TWTT

Tortonian early Messinian Figure 7

2.0
Mesozoic substratum

3.0

0 km 1

vertical exaggeration ~1.8

Figure 6An example of late Miocene (Tortonian) normal faults in the northwestern flank of the Guercif basin as expressed in seismic reflection line 84GR05 (see Figure 5 for location). Bright reflections characterize the MesozoicCenozoic unconformity. Because of the short wavelength of the fold growing above the anticline, a shallowly dipping thrust fault is interpreted. The fold appears to develop as a fault propagation fold, and the fault ramp is interpreted to result from the footwall of the normal fault acting as a buttress. Age constraints are provided by the GRF-1 well. BMA = Bou Mkhareg anticline. Arrows indicate sense of shear on faults; two-headed arrows indicate reactivated fault with the younger sense of movement indicated by the larger arrowhead.

NW

SE

0.0

latest Messinian - Pliocene

mid - Messinian (s) TWTT 0.5

1.0 Mesozoic

Tortonian early Messinian

1.5

0 km

vertical exaggeration ~1.8

Mesozoic

Figure 7Close-up view of the northwestern normal fault shown in Figure 6 and the anticline developing above. Onlap and truncation (denoted by arrows) define the unconformity that represents the initiation of fold growth. Folding of Pliocene strata also attests to more recent contraction.

NW Seismic Line 84GR-05

10 BMA
GRF-1
N5 N4 N3 N2 N1

SE Seismic Line GR-01

distance (km) 20 30

a)

0.0

TWTT (sec.)

1.0

0 km 2

2.0
y Q u e at ce io Pl M s es rn ar

b)

2 Ma

ne in ia n

10

To M

r to id

ni M

an io ce ne

nondeposition (hiatus)

Sequence N4 (middle Messinian) Sequence N5 (late Messinian - Pliocene)

erosional lacuna

Sequences N1& N2 (Tortonian) Sequence N3 (Tortonian - early Messinian)

Figure 8Composite line-drawing interpretation of two seismic reflection profiles and chronostratigraphic diagram across the northern Guercif basin (see Figure 5 for location). (a) The cross section depicts a graben at depth, approximately 20 km in width, with the prominent Bou Mkhareg anticline (BMA) near its center. Heavy lines denote depositional sequence boundaries defined by the geometries of the strata (reflectors). Onlap of strata in the basal (synextensional) sequence are interpreted as reflecting extensional block rotation. (b) The chronostratigraphic diagram illustrates a widening depositional pattern through the late Miocene (Tortonian and Messinian) and subsequent confinement during the Pliocene. These depositional sequences correspond with episodes of extension (Tortonian) and subsequent contraction (MessinianPliocene).

Gomez et al. 1349

1350

Neogene Guercif Basin

Tortonian or older) onlaps the Mesozoic basement, as well as the footwalls of the Tortonian normal faults. Local unconformities above the fold and within N1 and N2 probably represent either different pulses of extension and uplift, or possibly short-term sea level fluctuations that could have reduced the detrital f lux to the interior of the graben. Azdimousa and Bourgois (1993) documented several short-term sea level fluctuations in the Rifian corridor during the Tortonian at Cape Trois Fourches (Figure 1). Graben formation ceased in the late Tortonian, and sequence N3 was deposited. This sequence is characterized by parallel reflectors showing no effects of normal faulting, and it represents a tectonically quiet period up to the earliest Messinian. Deposition continued filling space remaining from the previous extensional episode. The brief period of tectonic quiescence represented by N3 was succeeded by contraction documented in two sequences beginning in the middle Messinian. N4 is distinguished from N3 by local stratigraphic truncation of N3 and onlap of N4 above the Tortonian normal faults. This contraction marks the closing of this part of the South Rifian corridor, and the final closure (e.g., Morel, 1989) corresponds with the unconformity at the top of sequence N4. As Krijgsman et al. (1999) reported, the post-N4 unconformity in the Guercif basin predates the isolation of the Mediterranean by more than 0.5 m.y. Thus, perhaps another part of the Rifian corridor remained open after the Guercif basin closed. N5 was deposited during another contractional pulse, distinguished from the previous sequence by a broad, regionally mappable unconformity truncating N4 ref lections. Thinning of latest Messinian PlioceneQuaternary reflectors above the crest of the Bou Mkhareg anticline attests to growth of this fold during this time. The geometry of the N5 reflectors on the north side of the anticline is interpreted as offlap rather than truncation. The GRF-1 well log demonstrates that this sequence comprises continental conglomerates and lacustrine sediments. One possible scenario for the structural development of the graben is depicted schematically in Figure 9. Extension and block rotation resulted in onlap of the Bou Mkhareg anticline during the Tortonian. This was followed by contraction and weak basin inversion. The uplift and warping of the Jebel AhmarMsoun arch was superimposed on this deformation as well. The Southern Part of the Basin Seismic reflection data in the southern Guercif basin also depict Mesozoic normal faults that have

contractionally reactivated, such as that beneath the structural high on which the KDH-1 well was drilled [the Bled Marhrane anticline of Colletta (1977)] (Figure 10). The broad anticline in this example grew above a blind listric fault. The wedge of Triassic and Lower Jurassic strata that rapidly thickens toward the west attests to the listric geometry (i.e., extensional growth faulting). The base of the Mesozoic synrift strata is denoted by ver y strong reflections characteristic of the Hercynian unconformity in northern Morocco (Beauchamp et al., 1996). The existence of a fault cutting the Mesozoic strata was also interpreted from dipmeter data in the KDH-1 well by GECO (1986). In plan view, these southern structures align with structures in the northern Middle Atlas, and this interpretation suggests that the northern Middle Atlas may involve the reactivation of synrift faults. The unconformity between middle Miocene(?) strata and Mesozoic strata suggests a pre-Tortonian initiation of growth for both the Bled Marhrane anticline and the Haloua-Richa anticlinorium to the east (Figure 10). If these structures are representative of the northern Middle Atlas, these relations suggest that the initiation of the main contraction of the Middle Atlas occurred prior to or during the middle Miocene. Onlap onto the Bled Marhrane anticline persisted through the Tortonian, whereas Tortonian strata above the Haloua-Richa structure are subparallel with the Mesozoic unconformity. Folded and subparallel MiocenePliocene reflections suggest a late NeogeneQuaternary pulse of contraction and uplift of the Bled Marhrane anticline; furthermore, Neogene strata approaching the Haloua-Richa anticlinorium depict a significant westward tilting, suggesting renewed growth of that fold. The southern boundary between the Guercif basin and the northern Middle Atlas is also bounded by normal faults striking approximately eastwest to east-southeastwest-southwest, and these structures are evident in the northeast-southwestoriented seismic line (Figure 11). Although timing constraints are not as precise as they are for examples in the northern Guercif basin, the apparent draping of Tortonian strata across the faults suggests synsedimentary fault movement, and possibly more recently. In fact, longitudinal profiles of stream terraces suggest continued uplift of the Middle Atlas with respect to the Guercif basin during the Quaternary (Rampnoux et al., 1979). Regional Tectonic Picture The structural relations described above illustrate significant along-strike variations in the structure of the Guercif basin/Middle Atlas region.

Gomez et al.

1351

NW Prior to Extension

SE

future Tortonian normal faults

Extension (Tortonian)
Guercif Graben onlap

Figure 9A conceptual and schematic illustration of the structural evolution of the Guercif graben. Tortonian extension produced block rotation and a gentle uplift of the Bou Mkhareg anticline (BMA). The growth of this structure resulted in an onlapping unconformity at the base of the Tortonian sequence. Subsequent contraction resulted in the growth of two anticlines.

rotation

Contraction (Messinian)
growth of anticlines above propagating faults BMA

more moderate dip permits contractional reactivation

dip too steep for contractional reactivation, new fault

not to scale

These variations are also illustrated by two regional cross sections through the northern and southern parts, respectively, of the Guercif basin (Figure 12). Depth-converted seismic reflection interpretations (including those shown in previous figures) provide the basis for these two regional cross sections. These interpretations were depth converted by multiplying the thickness in time by the interval velocities (see the data section). The northern profile (Figure 12a) depicts the Neogene graben located on the northwestern side of the profile. Other minor Tortonian extensional structures are located farther east, but this graben represents most of the Neogene extension, as well as the locus of subsequent contraction. Assuming Tortonian extension was oriented perpendicular to the trend of the Guercif graben, the minimum magnitude of

Tortonian extension can be estimated by summing the heaves of the Tortonian normal faults using the displacement of the Mesozoic unconformity. This exercise suggests 1.51.7 km of northwest-southeast horizontal extension for the Guercif graben. Farther toward the southeast along this profile, an early Mesozoic normal fault evident in seismic reflection data shows signs of contractional reactivation prior to deposition of late Miocene sediments. The southern profile (Figure 12b) shows a Neogene half graben located in the northwest. Horizontal shortening is accommodated by old rift faults that have reactivated as reverse faults; furthermore, Triassic salt locally was mobilized along some of these reverse faults. According to our interpretation, the Haloua-Richa anticlinorium marks the southeastern edge of the Mesozoic rift,

1352

Neogene Guercif Basin

NW

84GR-09
KDH-1 (projected ~5 km) Bled Marhrane anticline Messinian Tortonian

SE
Haloua Richa anticlinorium

0.0 (s)

Middle Miocene?
out-of-syncline fault

1.0 TWTT

Post Atlas Rift (Upper Jurassic)

2.0
Reactivated Mesozoic normal fault

Syn Atlas Rift (Triassic-Lower Jurassic)

3.0 0 km 1 2 3

vertical exaggeration ~1.5

Figure 10Seismic reflection profile 84GR09 across the Bled Marhrane anticline (BNA) in the southern Guercif basin (see Figure 5 for location) depicting a Mesozoic normal fault reactivated as a propagating reverse fault during the Neogene. Thickening of middle Miocene(?) strata toward the southeast of the fold suggests a pre-Tortonian initiation of growth. The reflections southeast of the Bled Marhrane anticline demonstrate a general northwestward tilt, suggesting late growth of the Haloua-Richa anticlinorium. Age constraints are provided by the KDH-1 well (tied in with other seismic lines) and surface outcrop (Bernini et al., 1994b; Benzaquen, 1965).

SW Middle Atlas 0.0

extensional draping of strata

NE Guercif Basin

Tortonian

(s)

1.0 diffraction at fault plane 2.0

Mesozoic

TWTT 3.0

0 km 1

3 vertical exaggeration ~1.5

Figure 11The boundary between the folded Middle Atlas and the Guercif basin as shown by a northeast-southwestoriented seismic reflection profile (see Figure 5 for location). These data depicting east-weststriking normal faults lower the level of the Mesozoic basement toward the northeast. This seismic reflection profile is unmigrated, and we interpret diffractions to denote the fault locations. Draping and onlapping of Tortonian strata across the fault attest to syntectonic deposition.

(a) Northern Profile

SE
20 30

NW
distance (km) 40
50 60

10

84GR05 BMA GRF-1 High Plateau

0

GR01

GR02

70 5

Msoun Arch

depth (km)

10 no vertical exaggeration

10

(b) Southern Profile

20
84GR09

0 5 KDH-1(projected) BNA
HRA

10

30

40

50
GR25 High Plateau

60 5 Messinian - Pliocene (N5) 0 Messinian (N4)

0 salt?

salt

depth (km)

? ?

Middle Miocene early Messinian (N1-N3) Middle Jurassic "post Atlas rift" reactivated fault, larger arrow head denotes recent sense of movement 10 Triassic & Lower Jurassic "syn Atlas rift" Paleozoic

10

no vertical exaggeration

Gomez et al.

Figure 12Regional cross sections across the Guercif basin based on seismic reflection profiles, well data, and published geologic information (see Figure 5 for location). (a) The northern profile depicts most of the middle Neogene extension and subsequent contraction occurring on the northwest side of the profile, primarily in the vicinity of the Guercif graben. (b) The southern profile also illustrates Tortonian extensional structures restricted to the northwestern part of the cross section. A small Mesozoic graben is interpreted beneath the Haloua-Richa anticlinorium (HRA) to contain thick Triassic evaporites that crop out south of the cross section. Tortonian extension estimates of 1.51.7 km in the north and 0.5 km in the south are based on the heaves of the MesozoicNeogene unconformity across late Miocene normal faults. Below 5 km depth, structures in both cross sections are unconstrained.

1353

1354

Neogene Guercif Basin

and to the east is the undeformed High plateau. We interpret the southeastern concentration of possible salt diapirs (e.g., beneath the Haloua-Richa anticlinorium) (Saaidi, 1996) and the northwest tilt of strata as suggestive of a northwest-dipping master fault inherited from Mesozoic extensional tectonics. Summing the fault heaves across the normal faults suggests about 0.5 km Tortonian extension in the southern Guercif basin. These two profiles, in addition to the structural pattern shown in Figure 5, depict the Mesozoic rift system as broadening toward the northeast. The north Middle Atlas fault (which may be traced into the Jebel AhmarMsoun arch) corresponds with the northwestern margin of the early Mesozoic rift basin (e.g., Fedan, 1989; Charrire et al., 1994). Relative to this northwestern boundary, the width of the northern Middle Atlas rift is approximately 4550 km, but the Mesozoic extension spanned 6065 km in the southern Guercif basin and 8590 km in the northern Guercif basin. Thus, the transition from the Middle Atlas to the Guercif basin corresponds, to a first order, with a broadening of the early Mesozoic rift system. As described by Morley (1995), localized extension in rift systems frequently splays into smaller faults as the rift terminates into a zone of diffuse extension. Isopach maps help define the geometry of the Neogene basin. Because the N2-N3 (Tortonian) sequence boundary was not easily discernible on many of the seismic reflection lines studied, the units N1N3 were considered together for constructing an isopach map of synextensional fill (Figure 13a). This isopach map of the preserved Tortonian and earliest Messinian strata illustrates the Neogene depocenter as relatively long and narrow, approximately 20 40 km, further emphasizing the distinction between the Neogene depocenter and the broader present-day physiographic expression of the Guercif basin. In addition to the long trough, there is a small area containing up to 1 km of preMessinian strata located southeast of the Bled Marhrane anticline (Figure 13a). This local accumulation, which may predate late Miocene extensional tectonics, appears to be related to the initial uplift and contraction of the anticline rather than deposition onto the hanging wall of a normal fault. Considerable Messinian and Pliocene deposition (sequences N4 and N5, respectively) is contemporaneous with growth of contractional structures (e.g., Figure 6), and this appears to fill in accommodation space remaining from the graben episode (Figure 13b). Locally, the isopach for this postextensional period exceeds 1 km. The postTortonian depocenter is wider than during the preceding stage, but it still displays major axis oriented northeast-southwest. The similar depocenter orientations may suggest that MessinianPliocene

deposition filled in space remaining from the extensional episode. There also appears to be a northeastward shift in the location of the depocenter, which may reflect the propagation of uplift of the Middle Atlas fold belt after graben extension ceased. Timing According to Krijgsman et al. (1999), marine deposition in the southern Guercif basin began at approximately 8 Ma. This is considerably later than that suggested by the well logs in the northern Guercif basin. The 8 Ma level in GRF-1 lies above more than 500 m of Neogene marine strata; therefore, barring an exceptionally high rate of sedimentation, marine deposition in the northern Guercif basin probably initiated earlier. Geohistory analysis was performed following the method described by Allen and Allen (1990). This approach quantifies subsidence rates and identifies episodes of tectonic subsidence and uplift. This exercise was performed for two wells within the Neogene depocenter (GRF-1 and MSD-1), as well as the surface stratigraphic column from the southern Guercif basin published by Krijgsman et al. (1999). Both of the wells are located above the same structure, but lie about 5 km apart. Because these wells are located on a structural high, they do not necessarily record the maximum subsidence; however, they are sensitive to the localized reactivation and uplift of the structure. Furthermore, as previously shown, contraction was contemporaneous with significant basin subsidence. Other wells were not used because they contained limited or no Neogene stratigraphic record. Decompaction was accomplished by assuming a depth-dependent, exponentially decreasing porosity function:
= 0
cy

(1)

where is the porosity at depth y, 0 is the surface porosity, and c is the coefficient describing the rate of decrease in porosity (Allen and Allen, 1990). 0 and c are dependent upon the lithology, and coefficients provided by Allen and Allen (1990) and Makhous et al. (1997) for similar lithologies were used here. The stratigraphic intervals and physical properties used are listed for each stratigraphic section in Table 1. The stratigraphic sections were progressively decompacted for the time period represented by each stratigraphic package to generate an estimate of total subsidence. Unconformities were constrained by the age of the strata above and below,

Table 1. Input Data for Geohistory Analysis* Age Top (Ma) Sequence N1 N2 N3 N3 N4 N4 N5 N1 N2 N3 N3 N4 N4 N5 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N3 N3 N3 N3 N3 N3 N3 N4 N4 N4 N5 N5 N5 N5 N5 N5 2680 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 2700 2700 2320 2320 2320 2320 2320 n/a 2660 2660 2660 2660 2660 2660 0.56 0.296 0.296 0.296 0.296 0.296 0.296 0.296 0.296 0.635 0.635 0.296 0.296 0.296 0.296 0.296 n/a 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.429 0.00039 0.00083 0.00083 0.00083 0.00083 0.00083 0.00083 0.00083 0.00083 0.00053 0.00053 0.00083 0.00083 0.00083 0.00083 0.00083 n/a 0.00036 0.00036 0.00036 0.00036 0.00036 0.00036 2650 2720 2720 2720 2680 2650 n/a 2650 0.56 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.56 0.429 n/a 0.49 0.00027 0.00051 0.00051 0.00051 0.00039 0.00027 n/a 0.00027 Allen and Allen (1990) Allen and Allen (1990) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Allen and Allen (1990) Makhous et al. (1997) Allen and Allen (1990) Allen and Allen (1990) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) 2650 2720 2720 2720 2680 2650 n/a 2650 0.56 0.635 0.635 0.635 0.56 0.429 n/a 0.49 0.00027 0.00051 0.00051 0.00051 0.00039 0.00027 n/a 0.00027 Allen and Allen (1990) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Makhous et al. (1997) Allen and Allen (1990) 100 50 250 50 450 50 200 50 25 10 5 5 200 200 400 250 100 50 250 50 450 50 200 50 25 10 5 5 200 250 400 250 210 50 310 50 320 50 240 50 220 50 320 50 350 50 460 50 520 50 480 50 290 50 210 50 30 20 20 10 10 10 5 5 200 200 200 200 300 200 300 200 400 200 400 200 400 200 0 Source c (1/km) 10.0 1.00 8.0 1.00 7.2 0.00 7.0 0.25 6.8 0.10 6.5 0.10 6.3 0.10 4.0 1.00 10.0 1.00 8.0 1.00 7.2 0.00 7.0 0.25 6.8 0.10 6.5 0.10 6.3 0.10 4.0 2.00 7.85 0.05 7.70 0.01 7.64 0.01 7.53 0.01 7.49 0.01 7.46 0.01 7.30 0.01 7.26 0.01 7.25 0.01 7.24 0.01 7.22 0.01 7.21 0.01 7.10 0.01 6.85 0.01 6.75 0.01 6.70 0.01 6.00 0.01 5.95 0.01 5.24 0.01 5.00 0.01 4.90 0.01 4.80 0.01 4.7 0.01 (kg/m3) WD (m) SL (m) 75 65 55 50 45 35 30 20 75 65 55 50 45 35 30 20 65 64 63 62 62 61 60 59 59 59 59 59 58 55 55 54 47 47 40 38 37 36 35

Depth Interval (m)

Lithology

Conglomerate, sandstone Marl Marl Marl Mudstone Sandstone,limestone Unconformity Sandstone,cg.

GRF-1 1 17791937 2 14131779 3 9501413 4 628950 5 414628 6 198414 7 198198 8 0198 MSD-1 1 12231247 2 11001223 3 8201100 4 600820 5 420600 6 282420 7 282282 8 0282 Zobzit 1 17601875 2 16501760 3 16401650 4 15921640 5 15701592 6 15551570 7 13941555 8 13301394 9 12501330 10 12201250 11 11751220 12 11651175 13 10641165 14 7601064 15 575760 16 480575 17 480480 18 430480 19 238430 20 170238 21 61170 22 3361 23 033

Conglomerate, sandstone Marl Marl Marl Mudstone Sandstone,limestone Unconformity Sandstone,cg.

Sandstone, mudstone Sandstone,marl Sandstone,marl Sandstone,marl Sandstone,marl Sandstone,marl Sandstone,marl Sandstone,marl Sandstone,marl Marl Marl Gypsiferous Marl Gypsiferous Marl Gypsiferous Marl Sandstone,marl Sandstone,marl Unconformity Marl, sandstone, limestone Marl, sandstone, limestone Marl, sandstone, limestone Marl, sandstone, limestone Marl, sandstone, limestone Marl, sandstone, limestone

Gomez et al.

*GRF-1 and MSD-1 are exploratory wells. The Zobzit section is based on the composite stratigraphic section presented by Krijgsman et al. (1999). Physical properties for decompaction ( = density, 0 = initial porosity, c = porosity decay constant) are provided by sources listed. n/a = not applicable. Water depth (WD) is based on Krijgsman et al. (1999).Negative water depth indicates poor constraints for paleoaltitude estimates; these values are assumed to be between sea level and the present elevation. SL is the long-term sea level curve of Haq et al. (1987). Age errors for the wells (GRF-1 and MSD-1) reflect uncertainty in age correlations with the surface stratigraphic section (Zobzit). The age errors for the Zobzit stratigraphic section are based on the astronomical time scale by Hilgen et al. (1995).

1355

1356

Neogene Guercif Basin

gro w

Figure 13Isopach maps (thicknesses in meters) of preserved Neogene strata in the Guercif basin based on seismic reflection and well data. Only faults active during each time period (based on the structural interpretation in Figure 5) are shown. (a) The pre-Messinian isopachs show the synextensional and subsequent tectonically quiescent period. The narrow depocenter is confined to the northwestern part of the basin. Stratigraphic thicknesses thin toward the Rif thrust belt in the northwest. (b) Deposition contemporaneous with the two contractional episodes since the Messinian fills in the northwestern part of the basin. Despite the contraction, deposition locally exceeds 1200 m in thickness. Abbreviations as in Figure 2.

4 W (a) Tortonian-early Messinian ("graben" episode)

ATM-1 AKL-101

3 30'

34 30'

0 200

0 40

MSD-1 TAF-1X

20

BM

GRF-1

G 800
0
N B

000
KDH-1
A

600 600
800

40

TAF-2

00

34 N

20

TAF-1

approximate trace of the N3-N4 contact 0 km 20

4 W

3 30'

(b) late Messinian - Quaternary ("intermontane" episode)

34 30'
AKL-101

th

of

Ms

ou

n"

Arc

ATM-1

h"

80

M
BM 0 A

GRF-1

10

MSD-1

TAF-1X

1200

TAF-2

200

60
B N A

KDH-1

20 0

0 40

40

0
0
TAF-1

34 N

200

0 km

20

Gomez et al.

1357

Age (Ma) 0 400 Depth (m) 800 1200 1600 2000 0 400 Depth (m) 800 1200 1600 2000 0 400 Depth (m) 800 1200 1600 2000
Middle Miocene
N1 graben

12

10

GRF-1 decompacted

decompacted undecompacted undecompacted sediment and water sediment and load correctedwater load corrected tectonic subsidence tectonic subsidence

12

10

MSD1
decompacted undecompacted sediment and water load corrected tectonic subsidence

12

10

Figure 14Geohistory plots based on Neogene strata from the Guercif basin. Two of the plots are based on well logs from the northern Guercif basin (GRF-1 and MSD-1), and the third is based on the composite stratigraphic section for the Zobzit region of the southern Guercif basin presented by Krijgsman et al. (1999). The locations of these data are depicted in Figure 2. All three plots illustrate rapid tectonic subsidence during the Tortonian, corresponding with extensional tectonics. The lack of tectonic subsidence from the Messinian onward suggests that subsidence was driven by sediment loading. This change in tectonic subsidence corresponds with the transition from the Guercif graben to the intermontane Guercif basin. The input data and physical properties are listed in Table 1. The depth errors primarily reflect the uncertainty in paleobathymetry.

Zobzit
decompacted undecompacted sediment and water load corrected tectonic subsidence

Tortonian
N2 N3

Messinian
N4 intermontane

Pliocene
N5

and no effort was made to account for eroded strata at truncational unconformities. To estimate the tectonic subsidence, the total (decompacted) subsidence was subsequently corrected for sediment

loading, water depth, and long-term sea level variations (Haq et al., 1987) assuming local compensation (Air y isostasy) following the method of Steckler and Watts (1978). Paleobathymetry was

1358

Neogene Guercif Basin

estimated based on facies and paleontology of wells and exposed stratigraphic sections (Colletta, 1977; Bernini et al., 1992; Krijgsman et al., 1999), and error estimates were assigned to these water depths (Table 1). Constraints are poor for paleoaltitude estimates (negative water depth in Table 1), and we have assumed these values to be between sea level and the present elevation. The geohistory plots in Figure 14 show consistent results for all three sections. Most notably, comparison of the total (decompacted) subsidence with the corrected tectonic subsidence demonstrates a profound change in basin subsidence patterns in the late Tortonian. The major component of subsidence on all three plots prior to approximately 7.2 Ma is tectonic subsidence. From the previous analysis of stratal geometries, this time period corresponds with extensional faulting and the activity of the Tortonian graben. Significant tectonic subsidence of the Bou Mkhareg anticline (on which wells GRF-1 and MSD-1 were drilled) is consistent with the earlier interpretation that the anticline did not grow significantly during the extensional period. On all three plots, total subsidence remains significant after approximately 7 Ma, despite very little or no tectonic subsidence. In fact, these three geohistory plots depict a general tectonic uplift; therefore, most of the subsidence since the Messinian probably resulted from topographic uplift of adjacent areas, which raised the base level, and sediment loading. The broad, similar patterns of the syngraben and postgraben isopachs (Figure 13) suggest that MessinianQuaternary deposition has filled in the remaining space. In addition, rapid infilling and subsidence may have been facilitated by increased sedimentation rates resulting from the growth of new, proximal source areas in the external Rif thrust belt. The shallowing of the marine basin thus resulted from infilling of the Tortonian graben, as well as regional uplift. TECTONIC SETTING AND ORIGIN OF THE GUERCIF BASIN Our results demonstrate that the main Neogene depocenter in the Guercif basin is confined to a narrow region that experienced subsidence controlled by normal faults during the Tortonian. The Tortonian isopach map demonstrates the localized nature of the basin with its long axis oriented northeast-southwest. Small magnitudes of extension, along with the localized nature of the basin, imply that the Tortonian graben is not a crustalscale rift similar to, for example, the Mesozoic Middle Atlas rift. Previous interpretations of the tectonic context of the Neogene Guercif basin represent a variety of

scenarios: (1) a pull-apart basin in an east-west striking dextral shear zone (Colletta, 1977), (2) flexure in the foreland of the Rif with secondary extensional subsidence (GECO, 1986; Zizi, 1996a), and (3) structural interference between the transpressional Middle Atlas shear zone and the Rif thrust belt (Boccaletti et al., 1990; Bernini et al., 1999). Subsurface and surface information show no evidence of a throughgoing east-weststriking fault system as required by the first possibility; furthermore, the main structural trend of the Guercif basin is oriented northeast-southwest. The proposed flexural origin is based on a reported regional thickening of the Tertiary isopach (Zizi, 1996a). To the contrary, isopach maps presented here (using a considerable amount of data in the western part of the basin) suggest a general thinning toward the Rif thrust belt in the northwest. As mentioned, most of Zizis data were outside of the Neogene depocenter. A more typical flexural foreland basin of the Rif is probably represented by the Rharb basin to the west which, unlike the Guercif basin, displays significant stratigraphic thickening toward the thrust belt (Flinch, 1996). Structural interference between the Middle Atlas and Rif thrust belt as suggested by Boccaletti et al. (1990) and Bernini et al. (1999) seems most appealing owing to the two adjacent tectonic elements: the Middle Atlas mountains and Rif thrust belt; however, the original suggestion proposed that extension in the Guercif basin resulted from a flexural overprinting of the Middle Atlas shear zone resulting from crustal loading in the Rif, and this does not readily explain the late Miocene change from basin extension to basin contraction documented in our study. Another implication of this hypothesis is that extension should correspond only with the northern part of the Middle Atlas shear zone; however, Tortonian extension was more widespread, and other, smaller examples can be found farther west in the tabular Middle Atlas and Saiss basin (Figure 1) (e.g., Charrire, 1984, 1990). This zone of minor extension occurs adjacent to and contemporaneous with the west-southwestvergent thrust system of the central Rif. Tortonian extension in northern Morocco is contemporaneous with west-southwestvergent thrusting in the central Rif, and extension in the Guercif basin and northern Middle Atlas ceased at the same time that west-southwest thrusting in the central Rif stopped (Figure 15). The coincident timing and proximity of tectonic events in the Guercif basin and the Rif suggest an intimate relationship between Guercif basin extension and west-southwest tectonic transport in the central Rif. The general northeast-southwest orientation of the Tortonian graben illustrated here and the paleostress directions reported by others (e.g., Morel,

Gomez et al.

1359

North Ma Age
Approximate Motion of Eurasia with respect to Africa Quat. Pliocene
L. NW-SE to N-S contraction, subsidence (thermal?) Mid E. Mess. potassic volcanism S to SSE vergent thrusting potassic volcanism extension

South Internal Rif Central Rif External Guercif Basin Middle Atlas Rif northern central
alkali volcanism contraction

Alboran
folding and strike-slip faults

Late Miocene

contraction

WSW thrusting

10

Langhian Serravalian

calc-alkaline volcanism Exhumation of Alboran Domain W Thrusting

extension

Tortonian

contraction

alkali volcanism

15

Figure 15Diagram summarizing the tectonic events in northern Morocco. Of particular interest is the general progression of tectonic activity in the Rif from the internal to the external zone and the contemporaneity of Guercif basin extension and west-vergent thrusting in the external Rif. This summary is compiled from several sources, including Frizon de Lamotte et al. (1991), Morel (1989), Comas et al. (1999), and Charrire (1990).

Mid Miocene

1989; Galindo-Zaldivar et al., 1993) are consistent with west-southwest transport of thrust sheets and the associated sinistral shear along laterally bounding faults in the Rif, such as the Nekor fault (Figure 16). We therefore suggest that extension in the northern Middle Atlas region may be a distant manifestation of the sinistral shear zone bounding the central Rif thrust system. Extension did not occur in the northern Middle Atlas region during the previous stage of west-southwestvergent thrusting because this prior episode occurred farther away in the internal zone of the Rif (see Figure 1). The Guercif graben is the most prominent example of this extensional system and may be a result of the preexisting crustal weakness inherited from the Middle Atlas rift system. Coincident with the initiation of south-vergent thrusting in the external Rif thrust belt, extension in the Guercif basin stopped and was succeeded by contraction in the Middle Atlas/Guercif basin (Figure 16). Despite this regional contraction and uplift, the Guercif basin itself experienced further subsidence as an intermontane basin driven by sediment loading. Minor contraction also occurred in

the Guercif basin, and the weak surface expression of these Late Neogene contractional structures demonstrates that depositional processes outpaced tectonic processes during the latest episode of the basins history. Also during this time, the Msoun arch began to grow, presumably due to transpression along the northern part of the north Middle Atlas fault zone. The mechanism for the kinematic change in the Rif thrust belt remains unclear. Although different plate models may disagree about early Tertiary movements of the African and Eurasian plates, they all agree that since the Tortonian, the relative motion has been an approximately northwestsoutheast convergence between the two plates (e.g., Dercourt et al., 1986; Dewey et al., 1989; Srivastava et al., 1990). Because the relative plate motions have not varied over the time period recorded in the Guercif basin, plate tectonics cannot explain the significant kinematic changes in the Rif and the Guercif basin during this time period. Many workers have suggested that west-southwestvergent thrusting in the Rif is directly related to extension and exhumation of the Alboran Sea

1360

Neogene Guercif Basin

(a)
T

5 W 40 N

NF
35

G R Tortonian
paleostress observation interpolated stress trajectory (1) Africa-Eurasia relative plate motion (Dewey et al., 1989)

Tortonian (~8 Ma)

5 W 0

(b)
T

40 N

35

G R Messinian
paleostress observation interpolated stress trajectory (1) Africa-Eurasia relative plate motion (Dewey et al., 1989)

Late Messinian (5.5 Ma) emergent marine Present coast line shoshonitic volcanism alkalic volcanism paleostress orientation (schematically shown) thrust transport direction R = Rabat G = Guercif T = Tanger

Gomez et al.

1361

Figure 16Two-stage history of late Cenozoic tectonics in northern Morocco. (a) During the Tortonian, extension in the Guercif basin, as well as other parts of the northern tabular Middle Atlas and Moroccan Meseta, resulted from a broad sinistral shear zone bounding the west-vergent thrust sheet of the central Rif. The west-southwestvergent thrusting of the Rif at this time contrasts with the approximate northwest-southeast convergence between Africa and Eurasia (Dewey et al., 1989). (b) During the Messinian, the Betic-Rif stress field changes to become more consistent with relative plate motions in the western Mediterranean. This resulted in kinematic changes in the Rif and Guercif basin. Thrusting in the external Rif has a southward vergence, and the Guercif basin contracts along with the rest of the Middle Atlas shear zone. Contraction closes the marine seaway connecting the Atlantic Ocean and the proto-Mediterranean Sea, resulting in the Messinian desiccation of the Mediterranean region (e.g., Hsu et al., 1973). Paleogeography is modified after Morel (1989). Inset maps depict the paleostress (adapted from Galindo-Zaldivar et al., 1993), including individual measurements (short black lines) and the interpolated stress trajectories (dashed lines), along with the relative motion of the African and Eurasian plates (fat arrows) (Dewey et al., 1989).

basin, as a result of either extensional collapse and delamination of a thickened lithosphere (e.g., Platt and Vissers, 1989; Seber et al., 1996; Platt et al., 1998; Comas et al., 1999; Calvert et al., 2000) or retreating subduction due to collision of an irregular continental margin (e.g., Royden, 1993; Sengor, 1993; Morley, 1993; Lonergan and White, 1997). As depicted in Figure 15, west-southwest tectonic transport in the central Rif persisted beyond the cessation of Alboran extension. Either mechanism must sufficiently explain the continued west-southwestward thrusting and its associated results, such as the extension in northern Morocco. Evidence of recent extensional faulting during the late Pliocene and Quaternary has been reported in the southern Guercif basin along the Jebel AhmarMsoun arch (Bernini et al., 1994a, b). Quaternary extensional faulting appears to be relatively minor and confined to the arch. Relative uplift of the Middle Atlas with respect to the Guercif basin appears to have continued into the Quaternary, as suggested by the long profiles of fluvial terrace surfaces (e.g., Rampnoux et al., 1979). Northeast-southwest extension is compatible with the generally northwest-southeast incremental shortening directions obtained by Bernini et al. (1994b) and Colletta (1977) from microtectonic analyses. We suggest that this relatively minor PlioceneQuaternary extension may represent fold axis extension or possibly local wrenching due to the northern Middle Atlas fault (NMAF, Figure 1), but not renewed activity of the Guercif graben. Northeast-southwest extension of the northern Middle Atlas may reflect the lateral extrusion of the lower crust within the transpressional Middle Atlas shear zone [vertical strain partitioning of Gomez et al. (1998)]. Gomez et al. (1998) suggested that this may be required to reconcile estimates of crustal thickening and horizontal shortening within the folded Middle Atlas. According to this hypothesis, lateral extrusion of the lower crust within the Middle Atlas shear zone may explain an apparently thin crust beneath the Middle Atlas despite Cenozoic contraction. As the lower crust

extrudes parallel to the orogen, it imparts a basal shear on the upper crust resulting in orogen-parallel extension at the end of the system, i.e., the Guercif basin region. Temporal changes in volcanic activity in the Guercif basin do not coincide with the tectonic changes documented here. Shoshonitic volcanism [85 Ma, according to Hernandez and Bellon (1985)] initiated during the activity of the Guercif graben, but this magmatic activity persisted well into the contractional phase; furthermore, shoshonitic volcanism appears to be limited to Jebel Guillez, which is located well away from the locus of Neogene extension. Alkali volcanism [52 Ma, according to Hernandez and Bellon (1985)] is distributed about the northern and southern extents of the Guercif basin. Petrologically, these lavas are similar to alkali basalt extruded in the Middle Atlas. The volcanic activity in the Guercif basin probably represents some other external process superimposed on the Neogene basin. IMPLICATIONS FOR HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION The timing and structural styles presented here provide important constraints for an improved assessment of hydrocarbon potential in the Guercif basin. Although the four exploratory wells drilled in the Guercif basin encountered no hydrocarbons, we believe that the Guercif basin still has potential for modest production. There is ample evidence suggesting good potential for hydrocarbon exploration in this part of Morocco. Known source rocks (Figure 4) are found in the Mesozoic strata of the northern Middle Atlas and the Paleozoic strata of the High plateau/Missour basin (e.g., Beauchamp et al., 1996; Zizi, 1996b), including Middle Carboniferous (Namurian) shales in the Missour basin showing up to 11% total organic carbon (TOC) and Lower Jurassic (Pliensbachian) calcareous mudstones with 4% TOC (Beauchamp et al., 1996). The regional distributions of these sources

1362

Neogene Guercif Basin

include areas adjacent to the Guercif basin, so it seems likely that they may be found in the Guercif basin. Reservoirs in the Guercif basin include Triassic clastics, Lower Jurassic reef complexes, Middle Jurassic sandstones, and lower Tortonian clastics (GECO, 1986). These reservoirs each have corresponding seals provided of Triassic evaporites, Middle Jurassic mudstones, and Tortonian mudstones (GECO, 1986). Our constraints suggest alternative exploration strategies in the Guercif basin involving the failed and inverted Mesozoic rift and the Neogene graben. These are particularly significant if possible hydrocarbon maturation and migration followed Neogene burial. For example, one scenario involves maturation of Lower Jurassic source rocks located in the Mesozoic half graben where they would be sufficiently buried. These could potentially migrate into Triassic clastics in the footwall or into Lower Jurassic reef complexes or Middle Jurassic sandstones of the hanging wall. These could be sealed by Triassic evaporites or Middle Jurassic mudstones. As shown by the Bled Marhrane anticline (Figure 10) in the southern Guercif basin, middle Miocene folding created structural traps prior to Neogene extension and burial. Another play concept could involve maturation of the Mesozoic source rocks with hydrocarbon migration into Tortonian clastics, such as the lower Tortonian strata northwest of the Bou Mkhareg anticline in Figures 6 and 12a. The subsequent tectonic inversion, although small in magnitude, has folded and tilted these strata to create a gentle anticlinal trap. In summary, the Guercif basin contains rich source rocks documented in the Middle Atlas mountains that have been buried deeper than in the Middle Atlas. These conditions may provide a better opportunity for hydrocarbon maturation. Although we have constrained the timing and basin architecture, other information is still needed for a proper assessment of hydrocarbon potential in the Guercif basin. For example, migration histories of hydrocarbons need to be studied and compared with the timing of events documented here; furthermore, an improved understanding of the Neogene depositional systems can provide additional constraints on the basin development. Detailed sedimentological studies of provenance and paleocurrents would yield crucial information on the sediment inputs of the competing mountain systems (i.e., the Middle Atlas vs. the Rif). CONCLUSIONS Results constraining the structure and timing of the Guercif basin demonstrate a two-stage basin

history that appears to reflect the influence of the Rif thrust belt upon the foreland uplift of the Middle Atlas. Through its own development, the Guercif basin documents a dramatic change in the kinematics of the Rif thrust belt; however, it appears that the Middle Atlas was affected by the Rif only when elements in the Rif thrust belt were proximal to the foreland uplift of the Middle Atlas. In the case presented here, very oblique transport in the thrust belt caused localized extension in the northern Middle Atlas, as well as other parts of northern Morocco. The southern Guercif basin also provides constraints on the timing of deformation in the northern Middle Atlas system. In addition to late Miocene contraction demonstrated in seismic reflection data, an episode of pre-Tortonian folding is also documented. Because contractional deformation predates the Late Neogene basin development, the structures may serve as traps for potential hydrocarbons maturing due to burial beneath the Neogene basin fill. From the perspective of geologic history, the story of the Guercif basin is interesting because the initiation of the intermontane stage heralds the impending isolation of the proto-Mediterranean Sea at the end of the Miocene. Regional uplift of the Guercif basin, in conjunction with thrusting in the external Rif, certainly helped seal the fate of the Mediterranean Sea; however, the terrestrial emergence of the Guercif basin appears to predate the Messinian salinity crisis by 0.51.0 m.y. It therefore seems probable that the emergence of the Guercif basin may reflect the closure of a significant part of the Rifian corridor, but the narrow marine seaway was not completely closed until later. The Guercif basin is another example of local complexities in continental tectonics, particularly when the nearby plate boundary processes themselves are complicated; however, it is this same complexity that may improve the prospects for petroleum exploration in these very areas. REFERENCES CITED
Allen, J. R., and P. A. Allen, 1990, Basin analysis: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Blackwell Scientific, 451 p. Azdimousa, A., and J. Bourgois, 1993, Les communications entre lAtlantique et la Mditerrane par le couloir sud-rifain du Tortonien lactuel: stratigraphie squentielle des bassins nognes de la rgion du cap des Trois Fourches (Rif Oriental, Maroc): Journal of African Earth Sciences, v. 17, p. 233240. Beauchamp, W., M. Barazangi, A. Demnati, and M. E. Alji, 1996, Intracontinental rifting and inversion: Missour basin and Atlas Mountains, Morocco: AAPG Bulletin, v. 80, p. 14591482. Beauchamp, W., R. Allmendinger, M. Barazangi, A. Demnati, M. E. Alji, and M. Dahmani, 1999, Inversion tectonics and the evolution of the High Atlas Mountains, Morocco, based on a geological-geophysical transect: Tectonics, v. 18, p. 163184. Benson, R. H., K. R.-E. Bied, and D. Bonaduce, 1991, An important

Gomez et al.

1363

current reversal (influx) in the Rifian corridor (Morocco) at the TortonianMessinian boundary: the end of the Tethys Ocean: Paleoceanography, v. 6, p. 164192. Benzaquen, M., 1965, tude stratigraphique preliminaire des formations du bassin de Guercif, Rabat, Morocco: Direction des Mines et de la Gologie, Service de la Carte Gologique, Bureau dtudes des Bassins Sedimentaires, p. 71. Bernini, M., M. Boccaletti, J. El Mokhtari, R. Gelati, S. Iaccarino, G. Moratti, and G. Papani, 1992, Donnees stratigraphiques nouvelles sur le Miocene superieur du bassin de Taza-Guercif (Maroc nord-oriental): Bulletin de lat Socit Geologique du France, v. 163, p. 7376. Bernini, M., M. Boccaletti, J. El Mokhtari, R. Gelati, G. Moratti, and G. Papani, 1994a, Geologic-structural map of the Taza-Guercif Neogene basin (north-eastern Morocco) (scale 1:50,000): SELCA, Florence, Italy. Bernini, M., M. Boccaletti, J. El Mokhtari, R. Gelati, G. Moratti, and G. Papani, 1994b, The Neogene Taza-Guercif basin: Excursion Guidebook (April 1012, 1994), Interim colloquium Neogene basin evolution and tectonics of the Mediterranean area: Regional Committee on Mediterranean Neogene Stratigraphy, Rabat, Morocco, 57 p. Bernini, M., M. Boccaletti, R. Gelati, G. Moratti, G. Papani, and J. El Mokhtari, 1999, Tectonics and sedimentation in the TazaGuercif basin, northern Morocco: implications for the Neogene evolution of the RifMiddle Atlas orogenic system: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 22, p. 115128. Boccaletti, M., R. Gelati, G. Papani, M. Bernini, J. El Mokhtari, and G. Moratti, 1990, The Gibraltar arc: an example of neoalpine arcuate deformation connected with ensialic shear zones: Memoires de Socit Geologica Italiana, v. 45, p. 409423. Brede, R., M. Hauptmann, and H.-G. Herbig, 1992, Plate tectonics and the intracratonic mountain ranges in Moroccothe MesozoicCenozoic development of the Central High Atlas and the Middle Atlas: Geologische Rundschau, v. 81, p. 127141. Calvert, A., E. Sandvol, D. Seber, M. Barazangi, S. Roecker, T. Mourabit, F. Vidal, G. Alguacil, and N. Jabour, 2000, Geodynamic evolution of the lithosphere and upper mantle beneath the Alboran region of the western Mediterranean: constraints from travel time tomography: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 105, p. 1087110898. Charrire, A., 1984, volution nogne de bassins continentaux et marins dans le Moyen Atlas central (Maroc): Bulletin de la Socit Gologique de France, v. 26, p. 11271136. Charrire, A., 1990, Heritage Hercynien et evolution geodynamique Alpine dune chaine intracontinentale: le MoyenAtlas au S.E. de Fes (Maroc): Ph.D. thesis, University of Toulouse III, Toulouse, France, 589 p. Charrire, A., R. du Dresnay, and A. Izart, 1994, Approche quantitative de la subsidence du bassin moyen-atlasique (Maroc) au Jurassique infrieur et moyen: Comptes Rendus de lAcademie des Sciences de Paris, serie II, v. 318, p. 820835. Colletta, B., 1977, volution notectonique de la partie mridionale du bassin de Guercif (Maroc oriental): Ph.D. thesis, University of Grenoble, Grenoble, France, 140 p. Colo, G., 1964, Contribution ltude du Jurassique du MoyenAtlas septentrional: Service Geologique du Maroc, Notes et Mmoirs du Service Gologique du Maroc, v. 139, 226 p. Comas, M. C., J. P. Platt, J. I. Soto, and A. B. Watts, 1999, The origin and tectonic history of the Alboran Basin; insights from Leg 161 results, in R. Zahn, M. C. Comas, and A. Klaus, eds., Proceedings of the Ocean-Drilling Program, scientific results; Mediterranean Sea II, the western Mediterranean; covering Leg 161 of the cruises of the Drilling Vessel JOIDES Resolution, Naples, Italy, to Malaga, Spain, sites 974-979, 3 May-2 July 1995: College Station, TX, Ocean Drilling Program, p. 555580. Dercourt, J., et al., 1986, Geological evolution of the Tethys belt from the Atlantic to the Pamirs since the Lias: Tectonophysics, v. 123, p. 241315.

Dewey, J. F., M. L. Helman, E. Turco, D. H. W. Hutton, and S. D. Knott, 1989, Kinematics of the western Mediterranean, in M. P. Coward, D. Dietrich, and R. G. Park, eds., Alpine tectonics: Geological Society Special Publication 45, p. 265-283. Fedan, B., 1989, volution godynamique dun bassin intraplaque sur dcrochements: le Moyen Atlas (Maroc) durant le MsoCnozoque: Travaux de LInstitut Scientifique, v. 18, Rabat, Morocco, Universit Mohamad V, 141 p. Flinch, J. F., 1996, Accretion and extensional collapse of the external western Rif (northern Morocco), in P. A. Ziegler and F. Horvth, eds., Peri-Tethys memoir 2: structure and prospects of Alpine basins and forelands: Mmoires du Musum National DHistoire Naturelle, Paris, p. 6185. Frizon de Lamotte, D., J. Andrieux, and J.-C. Guzou, 1991, Cinmatique des chevauchements nognes dans lArc bticorifain: discussion sur les modles godynamiques: Bulletin de la Socit Gologique de France, v. 162, p. 611626. Galindo-Zaldivar, J., F. Gonzalez-Lodeiro, and A. Jabaloy, 1993, Stress and palaeostress in the Betic-Rif cordilleras (Miocene to the present): Tectonophysics, v. 227, p. 105126. GECO, 1986, Mesozoic hydrocarbon potential of the Guercif basin, Morocco: ONAREP unpublished internal report, p. 20. Gomez, F., M. Barazangi, and M. Bensaid, 1996, Active tectonism in the intracontinental Middle Atlas Mountains of Morocco: simultaneous crustal shortening and extension: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 153, p. 389402. Gomez, F., R. Allmendinger, M. Barazangi, A. Er-Raji, and M. Dahmani, 1998, Crustal shortening and vertical strain partitioning in the Middle Atlas Mountains of Morocco: Tectonics, v. 17, p. 520533. Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail, 1987, Chronology of fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic: Science, v. 235, p. 11561166. Hernandez, J., and H. Bellon, 1985, Chronologie K-Ar du volcanisme miocne du Rif oriental (Maroc): implications tectoniques et magmatologiques: Revue de Gologie Dynamique et de Gographie Physique, v. 26, p. 8594. Hilgen, F. J., W. Krijgsman, C. G. Langereis, L. J. Lourens, A. Santarelli, and W. J. Zachariasse, 1995, Extending the astronomical (polarity) time scale into the Miocene: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 136, p. 495510. Hsu, K. J., W. B. F. Ryan, and M. B. Cita, 1973, Late Miocene desiccation of the Mediterranean: Nature, v. 242, p. 240244. Krijgsman, W., C. G. Langereis, W. J. Zachariasse, M. Boccaletti, G. Moratti, R. Gelati, S. Iaccarino, G. Papani, and G. Villa, 1999, Late Neogene evolution of the Taza-Guercif basin (Rifian corridor, Morocco) and implications for the Messinian salinity crisis: Marine Geology, v. 153, p. 147160. Lonergan, L., and N. White, 1997, Origin of the Betic-Rif mountain belt: Tectonics, v. 16, p. 504522. Makhous, M., Y. Galushkin, and N. Lopatin, 1997, Burial history and kinematic modeling for hydrocarbon generation, part I: the GALO model: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, p. 16601678. Monbaron, M., 1982, Precisions sur la chronologie de la tectonogenese atlasique: exemple du domaine atlasique mesogeen du Maroc: Comptes Rendus de la Academie de Science Paris, v. 294 (II), p. 883886. Morel, J.-L., 1989, Etats de contrainte et cinmatique de la chane rifaine (Maroc) du Tortonien lactuel: Geodinamica Acta, v. 3, p. 283294. Morel, J.-L., E. M. Zouine, and A. Poisson, 1993, Relations entre la subsidence des bassins moulouyens et la cration des reliefs atlasiques (Maroc): un exemple dinversion tectonique depuis le Nogne: Bulletin de la Socit Gologique de France, v. 164, p. 7991. Morley, C. K., 1992, Tectonic and sedimentary evidence for synchronous and out-of-sequence thrusting, Larache-Acilah area, western Moroccan Rif: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 149, p. 3949. Morley, C. K., 1993, Discussion of origins of hinterland basins to the Rif-Betic cordillera and Carpathians; the origin of

1364

Neogene Guercif Basin

sedimentary basins; inferences from quantitative modelling and basin analysis: Tectonophysics, v. 226, p. 359376. Morley, C. K., 1995, Developments in the structural geology of rifts over the last decade and their impact on hydrocarbon exploration, in J. J. Lambiase, ed., Hydrocarbon habitat in rift basins: Geological Society Special Publication 80, p. 132. Platt, J. P., and R. L. M. Vissers, 1989, Extensional collapse of thickened continental lithosphere: a working hypothesis for the Alboran Sea and Gibraltar arc: Geology, v. 17, p. 540543. Platt, J. P., J. I. Soto, M. J. Whitehouse, A. J. Hurford, and S. P. Kelley, 1998, Thermal evolution, rate of exhumation, and tectonic significance of metamorphic rocks from the floor of the Alboran extensional basin, western Mediterranean: Tectonics, v. 17, p. 671689. Rampnoux, J. P., J. Angelier, B. Colletta, S. Fudral, M. Guillemin, and G. Pierre, 1979, Sur levolution neotectonique du Maroc septentrional: Geologie Mediterraneenne, v. 6, p. 439464. Royden, L. H., 1993, Evolution of retreating subduction boundaries formed during continental collision: Tectonics, v. 12, p. 629638. Saaidi, M., 1996, Combinaison de donnes multi-source pour ltude structurale du Bassin de Guercifliens structuraux avex le Moyen Atlas (Maroc): Photo-Interprtation, v. 35, p. 8998. Seber, D., M. Barazangi, A. Ibenbrahim, and A. Demnati, 1996,

Geophysical evidence for lithospheric delamination beneath the Alboran Sea and Rif-Betic mountains: Nature, v. 379, p. 785790. Sengor, A. M. C., 1993, Some current problems on the tectonic evolution of the Mediterranean during the Cainozoic, in E. Boschi, ed., Recent evolution and seismicity of the Mediterranean region: Amsterdam, Kluwer Academic, p. 151. Srivastava, S. P., W. R. Roest, L. C. Kovacs, G. Okaey, S. Leevesque, J. Verhoef, and R. Macnab, 1990, Motion of Iberia since the Late Jurassic: results from detailed aeromagnetic measurements in the Newfoundland basin: Tectonophysics, v. 184, p. 229260. Steckler, M., and A. B. Watts, 1978, Subsidence of the Atlantictype continental margin off New York: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 41, p. 113. Wheeler, H. E., 1958, Time stratigraphy: AAPG Bulletin, v. 42, p. 10471063. Zizi, M., 1996a, TriassicJurassic extension and Alpine inversion in northern Morocco, in P. A. Ziegler and F. Horvth, eds., Peri-Tethys memoir 2: structure and prospects of Alpine basins and forelands: Mmoires du Musum National DHistoire Naturelle, Paris, p. 87101. Zizi, M., 1996b, TriassicJurassic extensional systems and their Neogene reactivation in northern Morocco (the Rides Prerifaines and Guercif basin): Ph.D. thesis, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 231 p.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Francisco Gomez Francisco Gomez is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Geological Sciences and the Institute for the Study of the Continents (INSTOC), Cornell University. His research in North Africa has focused on regional Cenozoic tectonics of the Atlas Mountains and adjacent regions. He holds a B.S. degree in geology from the California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in tectonics from Cornell University. Muawia Barazangi Muawia Barazangi is a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at Cornell University. He also serves as the associate director of the Institute for the Study of the Continents (INSTOC) and is the leader and coordinator of the Middle East and North Africa Project at Cornell University. His academic background includes a B.S. degree in physics and geology from Damascus University (Syria), an M.S. degree in geophysics from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in seismology from Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (New York). Professional experience includes global tectonics, tectonics of the Middle East and North Africa, structure of the continental lithosphere, and structure of intracontinental mountain belts. Ahmed Demnati Ahmed Demnati is currently an independent consultant based in Morocco. Before retiring in 1999 from the Moroccan national oil company, ONAREP (Office National de Recherche et dExploitation Petrolieres), he served as chief geophysicist and headed an exploration division. He holds an M.S. degree in geophysics from the Bergakademie Clausthal-Z and a Ph.D. from the University of Hamburg in Germany.