Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sedimentary Geology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s e d g e o

Evolution of the Miocene sedimentary fill of the Gediz Graben, SW Turkey

N.B. Çiftçi a,1, E. Bozkurt b,⁎
a
Türkiye Petrolleri A.O. (TPAO), TR-06532 Ankara, Turkey
b
Middle East Technical University, Department of Geological Engineering, TR-06531 Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Gediz Graben is a continental extensional basin filled with Miocene to Recent sediments. The evolution
Received 26 December 2007 of the graben can be expressed in terms of two phases: (i) Miocene half graben phase; and (ii) post-Miocene
Received in revised form 22 December 2008 graben phase. The Miocene half graben phase was governed by the southern margin structure evolution of
Accepted 21 January 2009
which significantly controlled the stratigraphic variability in the basin. Alluvial, fluvial and lacustrine systems
developed in the graben as a function of distance to the southern margin. Thus, alluvial deposits with coarse-
Keywords:
grained facies dominate the southern margin and grade into finer fractions of fluvial and/or lacustrine
Miocene
Fluvial-lacustrine sediments deposits to the north. This depositional architecture repeated three times during the Miocene and deposited
Normal faulting Alaşehir, Çaltılık and Gediz formations. These formations depict distinct thickness and grain size decrease
Crustal extension from south to north to emphasize the half-graben configuration for the favour of the southern margin. The
Gediz Graben post-Miocene graben phase started with the faulting of the northern margin. This resulted in relatively
SW Turkey balanced partitioning of the subsidence between the two margins although the preceding asymmetry was
inherited by the graben. Sediment influx became bipolar and alluvial fan systems developed along the both
margins.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Southwest Turkey is part of the Aegean Extensional Province,
which is a region of extensional deformation driven by the
complicated convergence of the African and Eurasian plates (Fig. 1).
In response to pervasive crustal extension, geology of the southwest
Turkey is dominated by numerous graben basins that are filled with
Miocene to Recent continental clastic rocks with volcanic rocks and
minor carbonates. Based on the trend, these basins can be grouped
into two as ~ E–W-oriented and ~ N–S-oriented, usually referred as
cross-grabens (Şengör, 1987) (Fig. 1). The E–W-oriented grabens are
morphologically more prominent features with strong topographical
expressions. Among them, the Gediz Graben is probably the best-
developed in terms of thickness of accumulated sediments and total
offset occurred along the graben-bounding structures. The graben
starts SE of Alaşehir to the east and extends westward for more than
100 km to Turgutlu and beyond, along the plain of Gediz River after
which the graben was named (Fig. 1). The southern margin of the
graben is better defined with a broad, convex-northward outline. It is
relatively narrow to the east but become wider to the west until it
splits into two branches near Manisa (Fig. 1).
Evolution of the graben basins in southwestern Turkey, particularly
the Gediz Graben has been the focus of many studies during the last
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 2105725; fax: +90 312 210 5750.
E-mail address: erdin@metu.edu.tr (E. Bozkurt).
1
Current Address: CSIRO Petroleum Resources, PO Box 1130, Bentley, WA 6102,
Australia.
two decades (e.g. İztan and Yazman, 1991; Cohen et al., 1995; Emre,
1996; Yazman et al., 1998; Koçyiğit et al., 1999; Yılmaz et al., 2000;
Seyitoğlu et al., 2002; Purvis and Robertson, 2005a). Yet, the
development of basins remained controversial mainly based on the
gross tectonic and stratigraphic inferences.
Four different processes have been proposed as the cause of
extension in the region: (i) subduction roll-back along the Aegean–
Cyprian trench (McKenzie, 1978; Le Pichon and Angelier, 1979, 1981;
Mercier, 1981; Jackson and McKenzie, 1988; Meulenkamp et al., 1988;
Kissel and Laj, 1988; Meulenkamp et al., 1994; Thomson et al., 1998);
(ii) westward escape of the Anatolian micro-plate along dextral North
Anatolian and sinistral East Anatolian fault systems (Dewey and
Şengör, 1979; Şengör et al., 1985; Şengör, 1987); (iii) post-orogenic
collapse of the crust overthickened during the closure of the northern
branch of Neotethys (Dewey, 1988; Seyitoğlu and Scott, 1991, 1992);
and (iv) different convergence rates along the Aegean–Cyprian
subduction zone (Doglioni et al., 2002). Although proposed onset of
the extension by these studies varied greatly between 5 to 60 Ma, it is
commonly agreed today that the extension was initiated by the latest
Oligocene–early Miocene time and occurred in two distinct deforma-
tion styles (i) latest Oligocene–Miocene core-complex formation in
the footwall of presently low-angle normal faults; and (ii) post-
Miocene modern graben formation as a consequence of Plio–
Quaternary high-angle normal faulting (e.g. Bozkurt and Park, 1994;
Hetzel et al., 1995a,b; Emre, 1996; Hetzel et al., 1998; Okay and Satır,
2000; Gessner et al., 2001a,b; Işık and Tekeli, 2001; Lips et al., 2001;
Bozkurt, 2003; Işık et al., 2003; Ring et al., 2003; Bozkurt, 2004; Işık
et al., 2004; Ring and Collins, 2005; Thomson and Ring, 2006; Bozkurt,

0037-0738/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2009.01.004
 50
N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Fig. 1. Simplified geological map of SW Turkey showing the distribution of ~ E–W-trending grabens and NE–SW-trending basins over the crystalline Menderes Massif (from Bozkurt, 2000). Inset map illustrates the regions main tectonic
features, approximate extent of the Aegean Extensional Province (AEP) and the location of the simplified geological map. The study area is also illustrated on the geological map.
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79 51

Fig. 2. Geological map of the study area around Alaşehir showing major structures, geological units, location of the boreholes and seismic profiles. Abbreviations: MGBF, master
graben bounding fault; BH, borehole.
52 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
2007; Ersoy and Helvacı, 2007; Ersoy et al., 2008; Cavazza et al.,
in press; Özkaymak and Sözbilir, 2008; Uzel and Sözbilir, 2008). Yet, a
major controversy remained unresolved whether the two distinct
styles evolved in a continuous manner without any break (e.g.
Seyitoğlu et al., 2000, 2002, 2004; Glodny and Hetzel, 2007) or in an
episodic manner with more than one phases of extension separated by
phases of contraction and/or tectonic quiescence (e.g. Koçyiğit et al.,
1999; Yılmaz et al., 2000; Bozkurt, 2001a,b; Bozkurt and Sözbilir,
2004; Kaya et al., 2004; Purvis and Robertson, 2004, 2005a; Beccaletto
and Steiner, 2005; Kaymakcı, 2005; Koçyiğit, 2005; Bozkurt and
Mittwede, 2005; Bozkurt and Sözbilir, 2006; Emre and Sözbilir, 2007;
Koçyiğit and Deveci, 2007; Özsayın and Dirik, 2007; Kaya et al., 2007).
All the ongoing arguments regarding the geology of the south-
western Turkey urge the necessity of, and calls for, more focused
studies in the region. In this context, the Gediz Graben has a key
significance because it comprises all the aspects of the region's
geology, particularly evidence for the distinct structural styles. Nature
of these styles (Miocene core-complex formation and post-Miocene
graben formation) has to be well documented in terms of related
depositional and deformational patterns. Only then it can be
constrained whether the evolution of extension in the region is
continuous or episodic. Our recent detailed studies provide new data
towards the deformational characteristics of the graben fill (e.g. Çiftçi
and Bozkurt, 2007, 2008, in press). However, data on depositional
aspects has still remained limited to gross observations lacking
throughout facies and environment analyses (İztan and Yazman, 1991;
Cohen et al., 1995; Yazman et al., 1998; Koçyiğit et al., 1999; Yılmaz
et al., 2000; Seyitoğlu et al., 2002; Purvis and Robertson, 2005a).
Detailed new studies focusing on the Neogene fill of the grabens are
emerging in southwestern Turkey (e.g. İnci, 2002; Alçiçek et al., 2007).
It is critical to establish a region-wide perspective by providing similar
data from the Gediz Graben.
This work intends to reconstruct the depositional history of the
Gediz Graben by presenting detailed field observations supported by
the subsurface data. It is particularly focused on the Miocene
sequences deposited during the core-complex formation and sub-
Fig. 3. Neogene stratigraphy of the Gediz Graben based on the geological data around Alaşehir. Figure briefly depicts the relationship between the lithostratigraphic units, associated
lithologies, governing facies associations and interpreted seismic stratigraphic units. See text for detailed discussion on the figure. Description of facies associations and constituent
facies are given through Tables 1–6.
stantiates a distinct change in the architecture of the graben during
the successive post-Miocene period. The role of structural controls on
the evolution of the basin fill is elucidated based on sedimentological
data and inferences are drawn towards the evolution of the
continental extensional regime in southwest Turkey.
2. Structural framework
Normal faults are the dominant elements of the deformation
pattern in the Gediz Graben. They can be grouped into two as: (i) the
major, low-angle (0–20°), north dipping, normal fault (the detach-
ment fault, named as Karadut fault [Emre, 1996], Çamköy detachment
[Koçyiğit et al., 1999] or Gediz detachment [Lips et al., 2001]) exposed
extensively along the southern margin of the Gediz Graben (Figs. 1
and 2). The fault separates metamorphic rocks in the footwall from
continental sediments in the hanging wall (e.g. Hetzel et al., 1995a,b;
Emre, 1996; Koçyiğit et al., 1999; Yılmaz et al., 2000; Sözbilir 2001,
2002; Işık et al., 2003; Bozkurt and Sözbilir, 2004; Glodny and Hetzel,
2007); and (ii) high-angle normal faults controlling both the southern
and northern margins of the graben as well as the deformation pattern
within the graben fill (Figs. 1 and 2) (e.g. Çiftçi and Bozkurt, in press).
These faults trend approximately E–W to WNW–ESE or ENE–WSW
orientations and they either occur as single faults with lengths varying
from sub-kilometres to tens of kilometres, or as fault sets composed of
discontinuous, mostly synthetic, and parallel to sub-parallel segments
(e.g. Temiz et al., 1998; Çiftçi and Bozkurt, 2007, in press). A graben-
facing step-like pattern is recognizable by the first order major- and
second-order synthetic and antithetic faults, with younging direction
towards the graben floor (e.g. Cohen et al., 1995; Koçyiğit et al., 1999;
Seyitoğlu et al., 2002; Bozkurt and Sözbilir, 2004). Well-preserved slip
planes indicate that the activity of the fault system is predominantly
normal-slip with minor strike-slip component (Çiftçi and Bozkurt,
in press). Linear coalesced alluvial fan aprons are commonly
associated with this fault system as an indication of their active
accommodation creation potential. Actively growing travertines, hot
water springs, shifting/bending of river courses and ground ruptures
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Fig. 4. Neogene stratigraphy of the Gediz Graben documented by various researchers. Available age data are also illustrated on each column. Age data were derived from the associated study. Note the controversy among the stratigraphic
columns and given ages. Dashed lines depict approximate correlations. Abbreviations — fm: formation; fa: facies association. (A) Yazman et al. (1998), (B) Yılmaz et al. (2000), (C) Seyitoğlu et al. (2002), (D) Koçyiğit et al. (1999), (E) Cohen et
al. (1995), (F) Purvis and Robertson (2005a,b), (G) Emre (1996). Note that stratigraphic columns (A) to (F) represents Alaşehir area whereas (G) is based on the data from Salihli area. Arrows in (E) and (F) illustrates fault contacts.

53
54 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79

of historical (e.g. 1969 Alaşehir Earthquake, Eyidoğan and Jackson,
1985) and recent earthquakes (e.g. Firuzan, 2008; Pamukçu and
Yurdakul, 2008; Polat et al., 2008; Tan et al., 2008) were illustrated as
further evidence of fault activity (Koçyiğit et al., 1999). The high-angle
fault system(s) cuts and displaces the low-angle normal fault (the
detachment fault), which is interpreted as the superimposition of the
neotectonic style of deformation related to modern graben formation
over the older style related to core-complex formation (e.g., Bozkurt
and Sözbilir, 2004).
3. Stratigraphic framework
The fill of the Gediz Graben comprises Miocene to Recent
continental clastics of mainly lacustrine, alluvial and fluvial origin
(Fig. 3). The lithostratigraphic units representing the graben fill are
predominantly exposed along the southern margin where the most
active graben-bounding structure(s) (master graben-bounding
fault — MGBF) is located (Fig. 2). The exposures along the northern
margin exhibit much less lithological variations and shorter period
of deposition (Fig. 2). Volcanic rocks, named as Toygarlı andesite, are
also exposed in a small area along the northern margin of the
graben, and represent the Neogene volcanism. This exposure
suggests relatively minor volcanic activity in the Gediz Graben
compared to the extensive Neogene volcanism observed to the north
of the Gediz Graben (e.g. Ercan et al., 1997; Yılmaz et al., 2000;
Doglioni et al., 2002; Çiftçi et al., 2004; Erkül et al., 2005; Purvis
et al., 2005; Tokcaer et al., 2005; Yücel-Öztürk et al., 2005;
Aldanmaz, 2006; Altunkaynak, 2007; Dilek and Altunkaynak,

Fig. 5. Measured stratigraphic sections through Alaşehir and Çaltılık formations. Section's are illustrated approximately on Fig. 2: (A) Evrenli section; (B) Osmaniye section in
Zeytinçayı creek; (C) Kayadibi section; (D) Soğukyurt section; (E) Gökçealan section. Lithological and sedimentological patterns are explained in (F).
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Fig. 5 (continued).
2007; Emre and Sözbilir, 2007; Ersoy and Helvacı, 2007; Karacık
et al., 2007; Kaymakcı et al., 2007; Yılmaz, 2007; Yılmaz et al., 2007;
Ersoy et al., 2008 and references therein).
The established stratigraphy of the Gediz Graben have been
complicated by numerous studies which produced number of
different formation names, controversial age assignments and
different facies models for the same deposit (Fig. 4) (İztan and
Yazman, 1991; Cohen et al., 1995; Yazman et al., 1998; Koçyiğit et al.,
1999; Sarıca 2000; Yılmaz et al., 2000; Seyitoğlu et al., 2002; Purvis
and Robertson, 2005a). In this study, we prefer to follow the rules on
stratigraphic nomenclature and therefore use the earliest proposed
scheme (İztan and Yazman, 1991; Yazman et al., 1998) with some
modifications in order to represent the up-to-date knowledge (Figs. 3
and 4). This framework defines five different lithostratigraphic
formations in the Gediz Graben: Miocene Alaşehir, Çaltılık and
Gediz formations, and post-Miocene Kaletepe and Bintepeler forma-
tions. An angular unconformity separates the Miocene and post-
Miocene formations in the outcrop exposures. The graben-fill rest
structurally over the metamorphic rocks of the Menderes Massif along
55
a low-angle normal fault (Gediz detachment); a metamorphic core
complex composed of deep burial metamorphic rocks and associated
granites.
3.1. Alaşehir Formation
Alaşehir Formation is the oldest Neogene unit exposed along the
southern margin of the Gediz Graben, particularly to the south of
MGBF (Figs. 2 and 3). The unit is exposed only in the vicinity of the
Alaşehir after which the formation was named (Yazman and İztan,
1990; İztan and Yazman, 1991; Yazman et al., 1998). Where exposed,
the formation has a low-angle normal fault contact with the
metamorphic basement rocks (Fig. 2). Traditionally, the formation is
described as a fining-upward succession, which starts with cobble–
pebble conglomerates at the base (Yazman and İztan, 1990; İztan and
Yazman, 1991; Yazman et al., 1998; Yılmaz et al., 2000). Laterally, these
coarse conglomerates display rapid gradual transition to monotonous
alternation of sandstones, siltstones and organic-rich shales (Yazman
and İztan, 1990; İztan and Yazman, 1991; Cohen et al., 1995; Yazman
56 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79

Fig. 5 (continued).
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79 57

et al., 1998; Purvis and Robertson, 2005a). This internal lithological composed of poorly sorted locally channelized conglomerates, tabular to
variation is treated in the member rank as the coarser-grained Evrenli cross-bedded sandstones with muddy matrix, and rare limestone lenses.
and finer-grained Zeytinçayı members (Fig. 3). With its bright red colour, it is a very distinctive lithostratigraphic unit.

3.2. Çaltılık Formation 3.3. Gediz Formation

Çaltılık Formation conformably overlies the Alaşehir Formation
through a gradual contact (Fig. 3). As the Alaşehir Formation, it is
exposed only to the south of the MGBF (Fig. 2). In areas where the
Alaşehir Formation is not observed, Çaltılık Formation is juxtaposed
with the metamorphic rocks of the Menderes Massif along a low-angle
normal fault (Fig. 2). Named by Yılmaz et al. (2000), the formation is
Gediz Formation is exposed along NW–SE-trending fault-con-
trolled belt at the immediate southern margin of the modern graben
floor (Fig. 2). The exposure of the formation is bounded by two
northward-dipping normal faults that bring the unit in contact with
the metamorphic basement, Alaşehir and Çaltılık formations to the
south and with the Quaternary graben floor sediments to the north

Fig. 6. Measured stratigraphic sections from the Gediz Formation. See Fig. 4F for the explanation of lithological and sedimentological textures. Due to outcrop availability, sections are
located out of the area on Fig. 2, slightly to the west. Measured immediately north of the MGBF, lithologies logged on the sections are correlatable with the study area.
58 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
(Fig. 2). Stratigraphically, the unit overlies the Çaltılık Formation
although no contact relationship is exposed (Fig. 3). Gediz Formation
comprises two subunits named as Hamamdere and Salihli members
(Yazman and İztan, 1990; İztan and Yazman, 1991). These units are
composed of conglomeratic deposits of an alluvial fan system and
sandy deposits of a fluvial system, respectively.
3.4. Kaletepe Formation
Kaletepe Formation is exposed extensively along the southern
horst block of the Gediz Graben (Fig. 2) (Yazman and İztan, 1990; İztan
and Yazman, 1991; Yazman et al., 1998). It overlies the Gediz
Formation with an angular unconformity (Fig. 3). In general, the
formation is earth coloured, thick and poorly bedded, poorly lithified
and composed of polymictic conglomerates with relatively minor
sandstone and mudstone intercalations.
3.5. Bintepeler Formation
Bintepeler Formation is the only sedimentary unit exposed along
the northern margin of the Gediz Graben (Fig. 2) (Yazman and İztan,
1990). The formation starts with very coarse-grained, texturally
immature conglomerates. Stratigraphically upward, the grain size
decreases and the lacustrine limestone beds become distinct. The
amount of lacustrine limestone further increases upward and the
formation become limestone dominated. There is a complete lateral
gradation and interfingering relationships between conglomeratic
facies and lacustrine limestone. Sandstones, intercalated with marls
and channelized conglomerates, are the dominant lithologies at the
uppermost part of the formation (Yusufoğlu, 1996).
Saraç (2003) documented mammalian fossils from several
localities along the southern margin of Gediz Graben. They all indicate
middle–late Pliocene (MN 16–17) ages, thus supporting post-Miocene
age for the Kaletepe Formation.
3.6. Quaternary alluvium
Quaternary alluvium in the Gediz Graben can be differentiated into
two units as proximal and distal alluviums (Fig. 2). Proximal alluvium is
characterized by coalesced alluvial fans of diverse sizes fed from the horst
blocks. They are dominated by chaotic to cross-bedded conglomerates,
cross-bedded sands and well-layered fine-grained deposits. Proximal
alluvium grade into and interfinger with finer-grained axial fluvial system
towards the centre of the graben. Meandering channel system of the
Gediz River controls the axial fluvial system. Together with distal alluvial
fan sediments, the deposits of fluvial system form the distal Quaternary
alluvium which is dominated by sands and muds.
Quaternary travertines are also observable in the study area. They
occur in a close proximity to the MGBF, controlling the southern
margin of the Gediz Graben (Fig. 2). They either intercalate with the
Quaternary alluvium or overlie the metamorphic basement. There are
active hot-springs in close proximity to the travertine accumulations
(e.g., Tarcan et al., 2005) similar to other parts of southwestern
Anatolia (e.g., Mutlu, 2007).
4. Material and methods
Miocene formations of the basin fill succession have been studied
in detail by means of measured stratigraphic sections. Eight outcrop
sections were logged and macroscopic facies analysis was carried out
for the Alaşehir, Çaltılık and Gediz formations (Figs. 5 and 6). 37
lithofacies were defined (Tables 1, 3 and 5) and they were grouped
into 8 different facies associations (Tables 2, 4 and 6). It should be
noted that facies represent specific process of deposition and facies
association represents environment or sub-environment of deposition
in which several processes are operational. Based on the facies
associations, environments of deposition were reconstructed for the
Miocene formations. Post-Miocene formations are not the main focus
of this study and no detailed analyses were presented here. Yet, they
were reviewed in the previous section based on the basic field
observations and available literature in order to provide foundation
for the seismic interpretations.
Three available boreholes in the Gediz Graben were analyzed and
borehole sections were constructed based on the well cuttings and
gamma ray (GR) logs. Cuttings are actual fragments of the subsurface
formations that were brought to the surface during drilling by the
circulation of the drilling fluids. GR logs are the remote measurements
in the boreholes which are useful for lithology detection. The tool is
sensitive to natural radioactivity which increases with increasing clay
content (cf. Asquith, 1982; Asquith and Krygowski, 2004). Using the
borehole sections, formations defined in the surface were tied to the
subsurface and 270 km 2D seismic reflection profiles were interpreted.
Knowledge on the depositional characteristics of the formations
gained through outcrop studies was found very helpful during the
seismic interpretation. Calibrated by the well data, seismic profiles
oriented both parallel and transverse to the graben trend, enlighten
the thickness and facies distributions of the formations in broader
scale than the outcrop exposures.
5. Facies, facies associations and environment of deposition
In this section, each Miocene formation of the Gediz Graben is
analyzed in terms of comprising facies associations. These associations
are based on the facies that were defined on logged stratigraphic sections
(Figs. 5 and 6). Keep in mind that the measured thicknesses of the facies
associations in the logs are much less than their true thicknesses. The
reason for this is the intense normal faulting which makes it impossible
to measure a complete section without a gap. Therefore, the measured
sections were utilized only as data to facies characteristics of the
formations. Subsurface data presented in the next section will provide
better constraints for the thicknesses of the formations.
5.1. The Alaşehir Formation
Alaşehir Formation is well-exposed to southwest of Alaşehir
between Kayadibi and Karakirse villages (Fig. 2). Four outcrop
sections were logged through the Alaşehir Formation to document
its lithological characteristics (Fig. 5). Nineteen lithofacies were
defined based on type of individual beds, grain size and primary
sedimentary structures (Table 1). Fig. 7 illustrates field photos of the
some of the major lithofacies. This lithofacies diversity was grouped
into 4 main facies associations as FA1 to FA4 (Table 2). FA1 to FA3
correlate to the coarse-grained Evrenli member and FA4 correlates to
the finer-grained Zeytinçayı member (Fig. 3).
FA1: alluvial fan facies association is characterized by the relative
abundance of facies Cm, Sp, Gms, Stl and Gtx (Table 1 and Figs. 5A, C
and 7). The FA1 is dominated by conglomerates intercalated with
pebbly sandstones. Conglomerates are generally thick bedded to
massive, poorly sorted, generally internally chaotic and structureless
with sharp and erosive bases and irregular tops (facies Cm and Gms).
Laterally they can be traced for up to hundred metres. Rarely, trough-
cross bedded conglomerates occur with lensoidal geometry but
wedges laterally in less than ten metres (facies Gtx). The clasts are
derived from the basement metamorphics and range in size from
coarse sand in the matrix up to metre-scale large blocks. Polymictic
clast population includes gneiss, phyllite, schist, marble and chert.
Crude clast imbrication indicates N–NE-directed palaeocurrents.
Poorly bedded, coarse-grained pebbly sandstones (facies Sp) are
commonly observed as interbeds to conglomerates and occur with
rare thin-bedded sandy siltstones (Stl).
FA2: lacustrine fan delta / delta front facies association is
composed of Ss, Sfu, Sng, Sst, Cm, Gms, Fps, Sr, Stl, Sp, Se facies
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79 59

Table 1
Dominant facies, facies descriptions and interpretations of the Alaşehir Formation.

Facies Description Interpretation

Cm, massive conglomerates Granule to cobble size clasts with sandy to gravely matrix, matrix supported, massive and Debris flow
chaotic, poorly sorted to unsorted, polymictic angular clasts, sharp (and locally sheared)
base, irregular top, locally inversely graded, locally contains sandstone lenses; dimensions:
bed thickness up to 3 m; lateral extent tens to hundred metres
Gtx, trough cross-bedded Granule to pebble size clasts supported by coarse sandy matrix, poorly bedded, generally Channel fill
conglomerates lensoidal, subrounded and poorly sorted clasts, moderate to poorly cemented, polymictic,
generally fining upward with erosive base with or without a lag, trough cross bedded;
dimensions: bed thickness up to 50 cm; lateral extent up to 8 m
Gms, matrix-supported Granule to pebble size clasts supported by sandy matrix, poorly bedded, poorly sorted, Debris flow to hyper-concentrated
gravelstones angular-subangular clasts; dimensions: bed thickness up to 1.2 m; lateral extent few tens flow deposits
of metres
Gr, rippled gravely Granule to coarse-grained sandstone, poorly sorted and rounded, locally pebbly, rippled at Deposits from channelized flows
sandstones the top, erosive base; dimensions: bed thickness up to 50 cm; lateral extent up to 10 m
Sp, pebbly sandstones Coarse-grained sandstone, pebbly, poorly bedded, moderately cemented, locally FeCO3 Deposits of flash flow — sand
nodules bearing, slightly erosive base; dimensions: bed thickness up to 70 cm; lateral dominated hyperconcentrated flow
extent few tens of metres
Se, erosive-based Coarse-grained sandstone, moderate to poorly sorted, locally red coloured, lensoidal, cross Scour-fills
sandstones bedded (crude), erosive base, fining upward; dimensions: bed thickness up to 50 cm;
lateral extent up to 3 m
Ss, stratified sandstones Medium- to fine-grained sandstone, moderately cemented, moderately sorted, FeCO3 nodules Subaqeous deposits at lower
bearing, locally laminated; dimensions: bed thickness up to 40 cm; lateral extent few tens flow regime
of metres
Sfu, fining-upward Medium-grained sandstone, usually formed as a single bed, locally laminated, fining upward, Subageous deposits at lower
sandstones ripples at top; dimensions: bed thickness up to 1 m; lateral extent tens of metres flow regime — wanning flows
Sr, rippled sandstones Medium- to fine-grained sandstone, generally laminated at the lower parts of the bed and Subaqeous deposits at lower
rippled at the top (wave ripples?); dimensions: bed thickness up to 25 cm; lateral extent flow regime-oscillation
tens of metres
Sng, normally-graded Medium- to fine-grained sandstone, normally graded, well cemented, locally occurring in Unchannelized turbidites
sandstone fining upward cycles; dimensions: bed thickness up to 15 cm;lateral extent tens of metres (hyperpycnal flows)
Sst, alternation of Fine-grained sandstone/siltstone, laminated, moderately cemented, locally graded bedding Deposition from turbulent flow
sandstone–siltstone in sandstones, locally rippled and FeCO3 nodules bearing — dimensions: bed thickness up
to 20 cm; lateral extent tens of metres
Ssh, alternation of Fine-grained sandstone/shale, laminated, locally convolute laminated, moderately cemented — Deposition from suspension with
sandstone–shale dimensions: bed thickness up to 20 cm; lateral extent tens of metres episodic turbulent flows
Stl, laminated siltstones Siltstones, laminated, locally sandy; dimensions: bed thickness up to 20 cm; lateral extent Deposition from suspension
tens of metres
Fst, alternation of shale/marl shale/marl/siltstone, laminated, bituminous, abundant plant remnants, calcareous; dimensions: Deposition from suspension;
and siltstone bed thickness up to 30 cm; lateral extent tens of metres generally low-energy environment
Fps, paper shales Shales, wavy laminated, very bituminous, abundant plant remnants; dimensions: bed thickness Deposition from suspension;
up to 20 cm; lateral extent tens of metres low-energy environment
Fm, mudstone Mudstone, laminated — dimensions: bed thickness up to 70 cm; lateral extent tens of metres Channel overbank deposits —
waning currents in channel
Fsm, siliceous mudstone Mudstone, red coloured, siliceous; dimensions: bed thickness up to 15 cm; lateral extent tens Deposition from precipitation and
of metres suspension under sediment
starvation (hydrothermal source?)
C, coal-coaly mudstone Coal, brown coloured, laminated; dimensions: bed thickness up to 50 cm; lateral extent less Subaerial low energy, channel
than ten metres overbanks — coastal plain
L, limestone Limestone, beige coloured, very hard, clayey, poorly bedded; dimensions: bed thickness up to Low energy (lacustrine)
20 cm; lateral extent tens of metres

See Fig. 5 for the related measured stratigraphic sections. Fig. 7 illustrates field photos of the some of the lithofacies in the formation.

(Tables 1 and 2; 5A–C and 7). The sandy facies of the association are siltstone alternation (facies Stl) and bitumous shales (facies Spl) are
commonly beige-brown coloured with local diagenetic recolouration. less common. Intercalation of debris flow facies such as Cm, Gms and
The grain size is highly variable from fine to coarse sand where mica Sp indicates interfingering relationships with FA1.
and quartz form the predominant grains. Individual beds are laterally FA3: coastal plain marsh facies association is composed of Fm, C, Sr,
extensive (tens to hundred metres) with rare lensoidal geometry. Sst, Se, Ss, Sp and Gr facies varieties (Tables 1 and 2; Figs. 5A and 7).
Horizontal lamination, ripples, graded bedding, convolute lamination, The occurrence of the association is relatively rare compared to others.
and flame structures are characteristics syn-sedimentary structures It is dominated by alternation of laminated mudstone (facies Fm), coal
and occur at various stratigraphic levels (facies Ss, Sr, Sng). Fining- (facies C), rippled gravelly sandstones (facies Gr) and cross-bedded
upward sandstones are commonly included within higher order sandstones with erosive base (facies Se). Lateral extend of these facies
coarsening-upward cycles (Facies Sfu). Thin-bedded sandstone/ are usually limited to few tens of metres. Thin-bedded sandstone/
siltstone alternation (facies Sst), stratified sandstones (facies Ss) and
Table 2 pebbly sandstones (Sp) are also observed.
Facies associations of the Alaşehir Formation. FA4: lacustrine basin facies association is defined by Fps, Fst, Sng,
Ss, Ssh, Fsm and L facies (Tables 1 and 2; Figs. 5B and 7). Dominant
Facies associations Constituent lithofacies
fine-grained facies of this association are very bitumous, micaceous,
FA1, alluvial fan facies associations Cm, Gms, Sp, Stl, Gtx
FA2, lacustrine fan delta/delta front Ss, Sfu, Sng, Sst, Cm, Gms, Fps, tabular and horizontally laminated (facies Fps, Fst and Fsm). They are
facies association Sr, Stl, Sp, Se well-bedded where an individual bed is commonly traceable to the
FA3, coastal plain marsh facies association Fm, C, Sr, Sst, Se, Ss, Sp, Gr outcrop limits or structural discontinuities (tens of metres). Dis-
FA4, lacustrine basin facies association Fps, Fst, Sng, Ss, Ssh, Fsm, L seminated and nodular pyrite is frequently observed within these
See Fig. 5 for the related measured stratigraphic sections. facies as well as abundant plant fragments. Occasional normally
60 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Table 3
Dominant facies, facies descriptions and interpretations of the Çaltılık Formation.
Facies Description
Gt, trough cross-bedded Granule to pebble size clasts supported by
gravelstones and coarse sand matrix, moderately rounded
conglomerates and poorly sorted, moderately cemented,
polymictic, scoured based with lag,
troughy cross bedding, fining upward;
dimensions: bed thickness up to 30 cm;
lateral less than 10 m
Gp, planar cross-bedded Granule to pebble size clasts supported by
gravelstones and coarse sand matrix, moderately rounded
conglomerates and poorly sorted, poorly cemented,
polymictic, base is non-erosive, foreset
cross bedding; dimensions: bed thickness
up to few meters; lateral extent few tens of
metres
Sp, planar cross-bedded Medium to coarse sandstone, otherwise
sandstone similar to Gp
Sl, low-angle cross- Medium-grained sandstone, red coloured,
bedded sandstones moderate to poorly sorted, with low-angle
planar cross bedding; dimensions: bed
thickness up to 30 cm; lateral extent few
tens of metres
Se, erosive-based Coarse-grained sandstone, red coloured,
sandstones moderate to poorly sorted, crude cross
bedding, erosive based, fining upward;
dimensions: bed thickness up to 40 cm;
lateral extent few less than 10 m
Ssc, scoured-based Coarse-grained sandstone, red coloured,
sandstones moderate to poorly sorted, broad scoured
based with lag, fining upward;
dimensions: bed thickness up to 40 cm;
lateral extent less than 10 m
Sh, horizontally Coarse-grained sandstone, well sorted,
laminated sandstones horizontally laminated; dimensions: bed
thickness up to 1 m; lateral extent few
tens of metres
S, sandstone Stratified sandstones
Fl, sand, silt, mud Sandstone/siltstone/mudstone, red
coloured, laminated to faintly rippled, well
cemented, locally fist size nodules bearing;
dimensions: bed thickness up to 20 cm;
lateral extent few tens of metres
Fm, mud, silt Mudstones, red coloured, desiccation (?);
dimensions: bed thickness up to 20 cm;
lateral extent few tens of metres
L, limestone Limestone, very hard and carbonaceous,
clayey, poorly bedded, lensoidal;
dimensions: bed thickness up to 1 m,
lateral extent 10 metres
See Fig. 5 for the related measured stratigraphic sections. Fig. 8 illustrates field photos of
the some of the lithofacies in the formation.
graded sandstones (facies Sng) intercalate with the fines and fades
away by means of fining and thinning upward cycles.
5.1.1. Interpretation
The conglomerates and subordinate sandstone beds of the FA1 are
mainly deposited by debris flow processes with coarse-grained and
bed-load dominated sediment budget (cf. Nilsen, 1982; Nemec and
Steel, 1984; Collinson, 1996; Miall, 1996). The clasts are derived from
basement metamorphics by mainly cohesive and stream debris flow
processes (cf. Nemec and Steel, 1984; Nemec and Postma, 1993; Blair,
1999). Intercalated pebbly sandstones and laminated siltstones may
indicate water laid deposits of somewhat dilute flows (cf. Nilsen, 1982;
Nemec and Steel, 1984; Nemec and Postma, 1993). All these facies of
Fig. 7. Figure illustrating some lithofacies observed in the Alaşehir Formation. (A) Facies Cm is composed of metamorphic clasts derived completely from Menderes Massif. Note the
tendency of inverse grading in chaotic conglomerates above the facies Gms. (B) and (C) Clast size in Cm facies varies significantly from pebble to boulder as a function of distance to basin
margin. All these clasts are embedded in a sandy to gravelly matrix. Note that the large loose block at the left of (C); it is actually a clast of the facies. (D) Recolouration of the sandstone facies
Ss due to FeCO3 occurrences. (E) and (F) Rippled sandstone facies. Lamination is locally observable in sandstone facies such as Ss and Sr. (G) A slump structure in facies Fps. (H) Coals and
mudstones represents subaerial marshy settings of the coastal plain. See Tables 1 and 2 for the more detailed description of lithofacies and related facies associations.
61
FA1 suggest deposition on an alluvial fan setting in front of a highland
fed from metamorphic source area. The large clast size, textural
Interpretation immaturity and the lack of permanent channel facies probably
Channel fills indicate that the distance of sediment transportation is very limited,
the slope is steep and the gravity is the main agent of transportation. It
can be inferred from the foregoing evidence that the relief provoking
the deposition of FA1 is probably fault controlled. Considering the N–
NE-directed crude palaeocurrent indicators, an orthogonal trend to
the palaeocurrent direction is suspected for the controlling structure,
Mid-channel which is approximately E–W-oriented.
bars The sandy FA2 is probably deposited in marginal lacustrine setting
at the toe of FA1 where the alluvial fan system meets with a lacustrine
basin. Thus, heavily sediment laden streams of the alluvial fans
introduced into the stagnant body of lake water. Therefore, the FA2 is
probably represents deposition at fan delta/delta front setting (cf.
Mid-channel
McPherson et al., 1988; Nemec and Steel, 1988; Dabio, 1990; Johnson
sand bars
Crevasse splays and Graham, 2004). The progradational nature of the association,
which is revealed by coarsening-upward cycles, suggests that the
sediment accumulation was building towards the lacustrine basin, a
typical aspect of overfilled lake basins (Bohacs et al., 2000).
Intercalated conglomeratic facies of debris flow origin indicate that
Scour-fills
gravity is still an influential agent that carries coarse sediments pulses
from the steep margins into the basin.
FA3 is probably deposited on the coastal plain of a lake and is charac-
terized by alternation of low-energy and high-energy facies, indicating
Scour-fills
periodic variations of the depositional energy. Deposition of laminated
mudstones (Fm) and coal (C) probably represent marshy settings that
developed at the top of lake benches (cf. Cabrera et al., 1995; Davies and
Gibling, 2003). Periodic flooding of the vegetated wetlands or marshes by
Deposits from
running surface waters during the high discharge periods of the alluvial
planar bed flow
system was probably responsible for the deposition of the coarser-grained,
high energy erosive facies by temporarily channelized flows.
FA4 is probably deposited in a low-energy, stratified, anaerobic
Overbank or
lacustrine basin towards relatively deeper parts of the basin distal to
waning flood
deposits
marginal fan delta complex (cf. Talbot and Allen, 1996; Basilici, 1997;
Bohacs et al., 2000, 2003). Disseminated and nodular pyrite
occurrences probably indicate anaerobic environmental conditions
Overbank or (e.g. Wilkin and Barnes, 1997). Occasional intercalations of facies Sng
muddy channel
with these finer fractions may indicate peaks in the energy of the
fill (drape)
deposits environment. Graded bedding and Bouma (1962) successions indicate
Deposition at the activity of turbidity currents in the deeper parts of the system.
ponds during These turbidity currents can be caused by hyperpycnal flows that form
draught
during the flood stages. Alternatively, seismic activity of the margin-
bounding fault system may trigger the turbidity currents by provoking
the sediments that are already deposited at the steep basin margins.
FA1, FA2 and FA3 described above can be grouped into a fan-delta
complex representing the coarse-grained deposits marginal to the
lacustrine basin. The exposure of the fan-delta complex is predomi-
nantly constrained to the E–SE of the outcrops of the Alaşehir
Formation (Fig. 2). To the E–NE, deposits of the fan-delta complex
display obvious grain size reduction into the fine-grained facies of FA4,
representing the deposits of the lacustrine basin.
Based on the studies of palynological biostratigraphy, Early–Middle
Miocene age was assigned to the Alaşehir Formation (İztan and Yazman,
1991; Seyitoğlu and Scott, 1992; Ediger et al., 1996). Palynomorphs
identified in samples from the Alaşehir Formation, particularly from the
FA4, correspond to Eskihisar spore–polen biozone (20–14 Ma) (Benda
and Meulenkamp, 1979, 1990). Coal beds observed in the Evrenli
member also sampled during this study but no index palynomorph
groups were identified. However, palynomorph facies were found very
62 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79

Fig. 8. Figure illustrating some lithofacies observed in the Çaltılık Formation. (A) Horizontally laminated Sh facies composed of coarse-grained sands. (B) Mudstone clasts are
common in high-energy channelized facies and scoured from the underlying mudstone beds. (C) Planar cross-bedded sandstones. (D) Note the laterally discontinuous lenticular
geometry of poorly-bedded limestone facies. (E) Red coloured finer-grained facies. See Tables 3 and 4 for the description of lithofacies and related facies associations.

similar to those of Eskihisar spore–polen biozone (personal commu-
nication with Hayrettin Sancay).
5.2. Çaltılık Formation
Based on the measured sections illustrated on Fig. 5B, D and E,
eleven lithofacies were described in the Çaltılık Formation (Table 3 ).
The observed lithofacies diversity was classified into two groups as
FA5 and FA6 (Table 4) Fig. 8.
Alluvial fan facies association (FA5) includes Gt, Gp, Sp, Sl, Se, Ssc,
Sh, S, Fl, Fm facies varieties (Table 4; Figs. 5 and 7). The facies
association is predominantly composed of sandy facies comprising
poorly-sorted, moderate- to well-cemented sandstones interbedded
with conglomerates and mudstones. Planar cross bedding, low-angle
cross bedding, and horizontal lamination are common in sandstones,
These sandstones occasionally have interbeds of conglomerates which
are cross-bedded, poorly sorted, moderate to well cemented and are
composed of subangular to subrounded clasts in the range of gravel to
boulder (facies Gt and Gp). The clast population is polymictic and
derived from various metamorphic lithologies of the Menderes Massif.
Mud is a pronounced constituent of the matrix in the sandstones and
in the conglomerates together with sand. In general terms, the facies
of the association, especially the muddy facies, are strongly reddened
(Facies Fl and Fm). Greenish grey colour is usually observed for the
Table 4
Facies associations of the Çaltılık Formation.
Facies association Constituent lithofacies
FA5, alluvial fan facies associations Gt, Gp, Sp, Sl, Se, Ssc, Sh, S, Fl, Fm
FA6, small lake or pond facies associations L

together with scoured or erosive bases (facies Sp, Sl, Sh, Ssc and Se). See Fig. 5 for the related measured stratigraphic sections.
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Table 5
Dominant facies, facies descriptions and interpretations of the Gediz Formation.
Facies Description
Cm, massive Granule to cobble size clasts supported by
conglomerates sandy matrix, chaotic, polymictic, angular,
sharp base, irregular top, locally inversely
graded, locally sandstone lenses bearing;
dimensions: bed thickness up to 3 m;
lateral extent tens to hundred metres
Gt, trough cross-bedded Granule to pebble size clasts, moderately
gravelstones and rounded and sorted, polymictic, trough
conglomerates cross bedded, generally fining upward,
scoured based with lag; dimensions: bed
thickness up to few metres; lateral extent
few tens of metres
St, trough cross-bedded Coarse-grained sandstone, locally
sandstones pebblely, moderately sorted, trough cross
bedded, scoured based with lag, fining
upward; dimensions: bed thickness up to
1 m; lateral extent less than 10 m
Sp, planar cross-bedded Medium- to coarse-grained sandstone,
sandstones moderately sorted, well cemented, tabular
cross bedded; dimensions: bed thickness
up to 1 m; lateral extent few tens of
metres
Sh, horizontally laminated Fine- to coarse-grained sandstone, pebbly
sandstones to silty, horizontally laminated;
dimensions: bed thickness up to 25 cm;
lateral extent several tens of metres
S, sandstones Others
Fl, sand, silt, mud Sandstone/siltstone/mudstone, locally
laminated; dimensions: bed thickness up
to 20 cm; lateral extent several tens of
metres
See Fig. 6 for the related measured stratigraphic sections. Fig. 9 illustrates field photos of
the some of the lithofacies in the formation.
gravel- and coarse-sand-dominated facies. Yet, red staining of the
outcrop surface, which is derived from muddy facies, always hides the
true colour and result in general red coloured appearance. Tabular and
lensoidal bedforms both exist in the association. Clast imbrication,
cross bedding and channel orientations indicate dominant sediment
transport direction from south to north varying in the range of SSW–
NNE to SSE–NNW.
Small lake or pond facies association (FA6) includes facies L that
occasionally forms individual beds within the clastic facies of the
formation (Tables 3 and 4). These limestone beds have lenticular
geometry with thickness rarely exceeding a metre. Laterally, lime-
stone beds fade away in less than 10 metres.
5.2.1. Interpretation
The deposits of FA5 probably represent an alluvial-fan environment
from proximal to medial setting. Predominantly channelized appearance
of sandstones and conglomerates with textural immaturity suggests a
high-energy setting in the form of longitudinal and transverse bars of a
braided river system (cf. Abdul Aziz et al., 2003). Horizontally laminated
sheet sandstones interbedded with mudstones possibly represent
unchannelized sheet flows of a sand flat sub-environment (cf. Nemec
and Steel, 1988; Miall, 1992; Blair and McPherson,1994; Abdul Aziz et al.,
2003). The alluvium was fed by Menderes Massif from south to north and
the alluvial fans prograded to the north towards the graben.
FA6 probably indicates a deposition in pod-like depressions
forming small fresh water lakes at the surface of the alluvial fan(s)
(cf. Valero-Garcés and Gierlowski-Kordesch, 1994; Miall, 1996).
Alçiçek et al. (2007) observed similar occurrences in Denizli Basin
southwest of the Gediz Graben and considered this to be character-
istics of humid environments in which precipitation is abundant (cf.
Abdul Aziz et al., 2003; Bassetti et al., 2004).
No palaeontological age date was acquired from the Çaltılık
Formation. Samples collected for age assessment failed due to lack
63
of dateable fossils. The only age data available for the formation is the
magnetostratigraphic work, which shows that the transition from the
Interpretation Alaşehir Formation to the Çaltılık Formation, occurred around 15.5 Ma
Debris flow (unpublished data of Şen and Seyitoğlu in Seyitoğlu et al., 2002). This
deposits data is in agreement with the Eskihisar poromorph association (20–
14 Ma) of Benda and Meulenkamp (1979, 1990) and suggest that no
significant time gap exists between the Alaşehir and Çaltılık
formations.
Channel fills
5.3. Gediz Formation
Three measured stratigraphic sections document the lithofacies
characteristics of the Gediz Formation (Fig. 6). Seven different
Channel fills lithofacies were described in the formation and these facies were
grouped into two facies associations as FA7 and FA8 (Tables 5 and 6).
FA7 correlates to the Hamamdere member and FA8 correlates to
Salihli member.
Sand bars Proximal alluvial fan facies association (FA7) is composed of Cm,
Sp and Sh facies varieties (Table 5; Figs. 6 and 9). The association
comprises the lower part of the formation in the form of red-brown
coloured, coarse-grained, texturally immature, polymictic conglom-
Planar bed erates derived from the various lithologies of the basement meta-
flow deposits morphics of the Menderes Massif. These massive, matrix-supported
and locally inversely graded conglomerates (facies Cm) frequently
include lenses of tabular cross-bedded sandstones (facies Sp).
Overbank or
Intercalation of horizontally laminated sandstones probably indicates
muddy water laid deposits of unchannelized flows. Sandstones are very
channel fill micaceous with mud in the matrix. Diagenetic red colouring is locally
observable. Pebble imbrications in the conglomerates suggest NE- to
NW-directed sediment transport.
Distal alluvial fan and fluvial facies association (FA8) is composed
of facies Gt, Sh, Sp, S and Fl with occasional intercalation of the Cm
(Table 5; Figs. 6 and 9). The association above the FA7 is easy to
distinguish with its beige–yellow colour, increase in textural maturity
and decrease in grain size. Moderately rounded and sorted gravel
stones with scoured bases (facies Gt), trough cross-bedding and
fining-upward cycles indicate the dominance of fluvial channels
during deposition. Intercalated sandstone facies S and Sp are
distinguished with improved textural maturity and increase in
content of quartz grains in contrast to micaceous sandstones observed
in the other associations. Mudstone is relatively rare but occasionally
occurs in the section (facies Fl). Debris flow facies Cm is also rare
compared to FA7. W–NW-directed sediment transport inferred from
channel orientations and cross-bedding is the first observed tendency
of the E–W-oriented sediment transport.
5.3.1. Interpretation
Based on the coarse-grained sediment budget, and gravity-
dominated depositional processes, the FA7 is interpreted as the
deposit of an alluvial fan setting. Dominance of the debris flow
deposits in the section probably suggests that the association
represents the proximal part of an alluvial fan system (cf. Nilsen,
1982; Miall, 1985; Nemec and Steel, 1988; Miall, 1992; Blair and
McPherson, 1994; Miall, 1996; Collinson, 1996; Abdul Aziz et al.,
2003). Predominantly south to north sediment transport reveals that
the alluvial fans were fed from the southern margin and prograded
towards the graben. This direction of sediment transport is consistent
Table 6
Facies associations of the Gediz Formation.
Facies association Constituent lithofacies
FA7, proximal alluvial fan facies association Cm, Sp and Sh
FA8, distal alluvial fan and fluvial facies association Gt, Sh, Sp, S, Fl and Cm
See Fig. 6 for the related measured stratigraphic sections.
64 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79

Fig. 9. Figure illustrating some lithofacies observed in the Gediz Formation. (A) and (B) Inverse grading in facies Cm. Note the clast size variation of the facies. (C) Poorly channel-
formed conglomerates can locally be recognized in the chaotic Cm facies. (D) Debris flow facies start to intercalate with channelized facies away from the basin margin. (E) and
(F) Channelized facies such as Gt and St have very distinct erosive bases usually with lag. See Tables 5 and 6 for the description of lithofacies and related facies associations.

for the alluvial fan systems of all the three formations defined so far.
This suggests that there is no change in the basin configuration in
terms of source area during the entire Miocene deposition of the
graben. Horizontally laminated sandstones probably indicate water
lain deposits of unchannelized flows.
FA8 probably deposited in the form of a braided river system at
relatively distal part of an alluvial fans (Nilsen, 1982; Miall, 1985, 1992,
1996; Collinson, 1996; Abdul Aziz et al., 2003). Observed sandstone
facies probably represents sand flats and mid-channel bars with a
component of downstream accretion (e.g., Miall, 1992; Blair and
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
McPherson, 1994; Abdul Aziz et al., 2003). Mud is relatively rare in the
section and may indicate deposition at abandoned channels or by
waning flows. Debris flow facies Cm is also rare compared to FA7 to
indicate relatively distal setting to the margin. It is important to
recognize that the dominant north to south sediment transport
direction prevailing in the graben has gained some westward
component with this unit.
The Gediz Formation, as the other formations defined so far, lacks
reliable age data. Emre (1996) defined Acıdere, Göbekli and Filiztepe
formations in the Salihli area, which probably correlates with the
Gediz Formation. In Emre (1996), Dacian (Miocene–Pliocene bound-
ary) was assigned to the Göbekli Formation based on Gastropod
fossils. As Göbekli Formation is comparable to the upper parts of the
Gediz Formation, Late Miocene–Pliocene (?) can tentatively be
assigned to the Gediz Formation.
6. Subsurface correlation of the lithostratigraphic units
All the studies conducted in the Gediz Graben so far have been
outcrop oriented focused mainly on the exposures along the southern
margin and to some extend along the northern margin (Fig. 2). There
is no doubt that these outcrops are critical to delineate the
stratigraphic units (lithofacies and their distribution) and deforma-
tion characteristics of the graben fill. However, as the loci of most
intense deformation, margins of a graben are very sensitive and may
host local geological relations that are not representative of the entire
basin. It is of critical importance and also requirement of modern
geology that these observations have to be extended to the entire
basin by means of a proper subsurface method(s). Unfortunately,
available subsurface data in the Gediz Graben is underutilized to
address this critical issue. Without a concrete surface to subsurface
correlation, which portrays the sedimentary fill from the margin to the
depocentre, a basin's stratigraphic framework can only be constructed
to a limited extend.
The following section intends to tie the surface observations
presented in the preceding section to the subsurface data. In this way,
high resolution but laterally discontinuous outcrop data become
supported with the low resolution but laterally continuous subsurface
data. This provides further evidence to lateral extent, depositional
geometries,stratal patterns and contact relationships of the lithos-
tratigraphic units defined in thepreceding section.
6.1. Boreholes
Three exploration wells have been drilled in the Gediz Graben near
Alaşehir (Fig. 2). These boreholes penetrated to the Neogene clastics
with BH-1 reaching all the way to the basement metamorphics
(Fig. 10). Although BH-1 provides the thickest section of the graben fill
which is around 2500 m, thicker sections are likely for BH-2 and BH-3,
which were drilled in closer proximity to southern margin and did not
reach to the basement.
Polymictic conglomerates with interbeds of sandstones and
pebbly sandstones are observable at the base of the BH-1 and
probably correspond to FA1 of the Alaşehir Formation. Therefore,
this lowermost section can be considered as the Evrenli member.
Remember that the Evrenli member was correlated with the fan-
delta complex of the Alaşehir Formation (Fig. 3), comprising FA1,
FA2 and FA3. Gamma Ray (GR) response of the unit is usually low
and indicates coarse-grained, clay free nature of the unit with rare
and thin GR picks (Fig. 11). These GR picks are significantly higher
than the normal shale responses of the Alaşehir Formation.
Therefore, they may indicate a volcanic input to the system as
thin ash layer intercalations. This volcanic content might be
related to the regional Early–Middle Miocene volcanism of the
western Anatolia as represented by the Toygarlı andesite along the
northern margin of the Gediz Graben (Fig. 2). Although the
65
Toygarlı andesite is subintrusive in the area, extrusive equivalents
to the north might be the source of the volcanic inclusion(s)
within the formation. The available age data for the Toygarlı an-
desite clusters around Middle Miocene: 14.4 ± 1 Ma (Ercan et al.,
1997), 14.65 ± 0.06 to 16.08 ± 0.91 Ma (Purvis et al., 2005), 12–
16 Ma (TPAO unpublished data) and 15 Ma (Yılmaz et al., 2000).
This age assignment overlaps with the depositional period of the
Alaşehir Formation and may suggest that the Alaşehir Formation is
Middle Miocene rather than Early–Middle Miocene assigned by
palynological biostratigraphy.
Evrenli member overlies the basement with a low-angle fault
surface. This unit displays a general fining-upward character as
indicated by the increasing sand content (Fig. 11). Within this overall
fining-upward pattern, 20–30-m-thick coarsening-upward cycles are
easily distinguishable in GR patterns to represent progradational
nature of the unit (Fig. 11). The data is in agreement with the outcrop
observations of the Evrenli member and fits well with the fan-delta
complex interpretation (including FA1, FA2 and FA3). Above the
Evrenli member, Zeytinçayı member of the Alaşehir Formation
(corresponds to FA4) is marked by a very sharp change in the GR
pattern (Fig. 11). The unit is characterized by higher and erratic GR
response and comprises dark brown to green coloured, laminated,
bitumous and locally carbonaceous shales intercalated with brown to
beige coloured, quartz- and mica-bearing and well-cemented sand-
stones. GR log response indicates coarsening- and fining-upward
cycles in 10–30 m thickness range as evidence to variations in
depositional energy of the system. Zeytinçay member correlates well
between the three boreholes by its distinctive lithology and GR
pattern (Figs. 10 and 11).
From the examination of well cuttings, Çaltılık Formation is
recognized by its green to yellow coloured, quartz and mica-bearing
sandstones and polimictic conglomerates with distinctive brick red
coloured mudstones intercalations (FA5). The log pattern of the
formation is characterized by less erratic and lowered GR response
compared to Alaşehir Formation (Fig. 11). This indicates increased
amount of sand in the formation. Thus, the well data is in confirmation
with the surface observations that the Çaltılık Formation is sandstone-
dominated deposit with mudstone intercalations. Thin limestone
lenses (FA6), which indicate presence of small, temporary fresh water
lakes or ponds, also noticed occasionally within the formation in well
cuttings. Furthermore, the amount of limestone is increased in the
formation towards north and reached up to 70 m in thickness in BH-1
(Figs. 10 and 11). Compared to outcrops, this is a significant increase in
the thickness of FA6 and indicates distal depositional setting with
respect to the southern margin.
As the outcrops, conglomerates and sandstones dominate the
Gediz Formation in the boreholes (Fig. 10). The formation can be
recognized above the Çaltılık Formation based on a distinct colour
change and increased average grain size and this changes the GR
response of the formation to slightly lowered GR readings with more
regular pattern. Although lithological descriptions of the rock cuttings
are not adequate to distinguish the two members of the formation, the
Hamamdere member can be recognized based on relative abundance
of conglomerates due to its proximal alluvial fan setting (FA7)
(Fig. 10). On the other hand, the Salihli member is characterized by
cylindrical log pattern and low GR response, which indicates clean
sand-dominated nature of the unit deposited by a braided river
system (FA8) (Fig. 11).
Kaletepe/Bintepeler formation(s) overlies the Gediz Formation
and is composed predominantly of conglomerates. Discrimination of
the Kaltepe/Bintepeler formations above the Gediz Formation is
difficult by borehole data due to lithological similarity of the forma-
tions. There is also significant sediment influx to post-Miocene
formations from the underlying Miocene units, which were already
exposed along the southern margin; a process known as cannibalisa-
tion (cf. Cohen et al., 1995). Yet, slightly increased GR response and
66 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79

Fig. 10. A summary section correlating the boreholes drilled in the Gediz Graben. See Fig. 2 for the location of the boreholes.

weak cementation may help to identify these formations. Compared indicating that accommodation creation by subsidence of the graben
to the underlying formations, thickness change of the Kaletepe/ block is more symmetrically distributed among the margins of the
Bintepeler formation(s) is minor (if any) from south to north, basin during the post-Miocene period (Fig. 10).
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Fig. 11. Figure illustrating formations and corresponding GR responses in BH-1. Exaggerated GR logs depicts the internal character of the deposits that includes coarsening-upward (CU) / fining-upward (FU) cycles or cylindrical log responses.

67
 68
N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Fig. 12. 2-D seismic profile (S-12) oriented transverse to the Gediz Graben. Vertical scale is in milliseconds. The distance between the horizontal tick marks is 625 m. Note that there is nonlinear vertical exaggeration associated with the seismic
profiles. (A) Uninterpreted profile. Small arrows point out the stratal terminations. (B) Section with interpretation of seismic stratigraphic units. Thick black line depicts the subsurface continuation of MGBF and thinner black lines illustrate
some secondary hanging-wall faults offsetting the stratigraphic units. See Fig. 2 for location of the seismic profile.
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79 69

6.2. Seismic data
The available seismic data from the graben have provided further
evidence to depositional geometries of the graben fill. Metamorphic
basement and three distinct seismic stratigraphic units can, based on
the reflection characteristics and stratification pattern, be differen-
tiated in the seismic profiles (Fig. 12). The metamorphic basement is
relatively obvious beneath the sedimentary cover by its acoustic
transparency. Although the basement is a zone of no prominent
reflectors in general, several high-amplitude reflections were imaged
on some profiles immediately below the sedimentary fill (Fig. 12).
Well data, on the other hand, avoid any arguments to consider these
reflectors as part of the sedimentary fill.
Seismic stratigraphic unit I (SSU-I) lies above the basement and is
characterized by continuous parallel reflector pattern (Fig. 12). In
general, the reflectors dip towards the MGBF and become almost
horizontal to the north of the basin. It is obvious that, this strata pattern
is not inherited from the deposition of the unit but is produced by roll-
over folding above a listric MGBF (cf. Xiao and Suppe, 1988, 1989; Shaw
et al., 1997). The thickness of the unit is apparently influenced by
secondary hanging-wall faults that created basement highs and lows
across the depositional realm of the SSU-I (Fig. 12). In most transverse
sections (e.g. Fig.13), the thickness of the unit apparently decreases from
south to north. When SSU-I is correlated with the well data, a good
match become evident with the Alaşehir Formation (Fig. 13). Therefore,
SSU-I was considered as the equivalent of the Alaşehir Formation. The
thickness of the formation in the buried graben block locally exceed
1400 m with a well-defined depocentre located immediately NE of
Alaşehir (Fig. 14). The location of this depocentre correlates well with
the spatial distribution of the formation's exposures (Fig. 2). Formation
wedges off to the west from this depocentre as the exposures of the
formation demise in the same direction.
Seismic stratigraphic unit II (SSU-II) overlies the SSU-I with a
distinct change in the stratal pattern and a downlap surface (Fig. 12).
The unit has steep dip next to MGBF where the reflector dip is
almost parallel to the dip of the MGBF. Away from the MGBF, the dip
gradually decreases and the reflectors become tangential to the
underlying SSU-I around the depocentre of the graben. Here, one
can define a downlap surface between SSU-I and SSU-II to
differentiate the units. Further north, the dip direction changes
and the reflectors become slightly north dipping to confirm the
dominant roll-over fold geometry of the hanging-wall. It is also a
straight forward observation that the unit gets thinner from south to
north. Reflector character of the unit also changes in the same
direction. Towards the MGBF, the unit displays hummocky pattern
characterized by irregular, subparallel and discontinous reflections
which become more distinct and parallel to the north. Although,
some of this change may be attributable to the change in the
imaging quality as a function of distance to MGBF, it may also
demonstrate a component of lateral facies change from north to
south. As SSU-II correlates with the Çaltılık Formation (Fig. 13), it
can be interpreted that disorganized conglomerates of alluvial fans
dominate the proximal part of the unit near MGBF and result in the
hummocky pattern. Towards north to more distal area, more
organized and water driven deposits (e.g., lacustrine carbonates of
the Çaltılık Formation) become dominant to produce parallel and
continuous reflection responses. The thickness distribution of the
formation emphasizes two distinct depocentre for the unit where it
exceeds 1000 m (Fig. 14). The eastern depocentre correlates well
with depocentre of the underlying Alaşehir Formation. Yet the
western depocentre is located in that part of the graben where the
Alaşehir Formation wedges off. This suggests that the accommoda-
tion creation was migrated towards the west. The Çaltılık Formation
wedges off to the east over the Alaşehir Formation (Fig. 14).
Seismic stratigraphic unit III (SSU-III) overlies the SSU-II and is
characterized by almost horizontal reflectors onlaping onto the
underlying unit (Fig. 12). The reflectors have a tendency to thicken
near the depocentre of the graben. They also appear more continuous

Fig. 13. A transverse seismic profile (S-10) with basic interpretations and Borehole 1 (BH-1). The vertical axis is in time (msec) and the horizontal scale is as illustrated. There is a good
correlation between lithotratigraphic formation(s) identified in the BH-1 and seismic stratigraphic units. Although Gediz Formation and overlying Kaletepe Formation and
Quaternary alluvium appear as a single seismic stratigraphic unit, a prominent reflector marks the boundary between Gediz and overlying Kaletepe/Bintepeler formations. See Fig. 2
for the location of the seismic profile.
 70
N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Fig. 14. Thickness of the units in the buried graben block (Fig. 2). Grey areas with white outlines illustrate fault gaps. Black lines are the location of 2D seismic profiles. (A) Alaşehir Formation; (B) Çaltılık Formation; (C) Gediz Formation; and
(D) post-Miocene units including Kaletepe/Bintepeler formations and Quaternary alluvium.
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79 71

towards the southern and northern margins but become relatively
discontinuous at the depocentre. SSU-III correlates to more than one
formation. Together with the Quaternary alluvium, Gediz, Kaletepe
and Bintepeler formations (or their basinward equivalents) are all
included within the SSU-III. Although, no distinct seismic unit which
correlates to Gediz Formation can be differentiated by means of a
significant seismic surface, borehole data helps to identify the
uppermost contact of the formation (Fig. 13). Indeed this contact
corresponds to a prominent reflector that can be traced across most of
the graben fill. Remember that an angular unconformity was defined
between the Gediz and Kaletepe formations (Fig. 3). Therefore, the
prominent reflector defined above is probably a correlative conformity
of this angular unconformity observed in the outcrop exposures.
Furthermore, a sedimentary wedge can be recognized above this
horizon adjacent to the northern margin (Fig. 15). It is very likely that
this wedge is related to the Bintepeler Formation and represents a
southward prograding deposition, sourced by the northern margin of
the graben. This important piece of data is useful to constrain timing of
the northern margin structure and correlating Kalatepe and Binte-
peler formations across the two margins of the graben above the
Gediz Formation. Thickness distribution of the Gediz Formation and
post-Miocene deposits are illustrated in Fig. 14C and D, respectively.
Gediz Formation displays relatively uniform thickness around 400 m
across the seismic coverage without a distinct depocentre. It thins to
less than 200 m towards east and locally reaches maximums around
700 m. On the other hand, post-Miocene sediments have several
depocentres exceeding 1000 m thickness (Fig. 14D). These depocen-
tres are probably controlled by the segments of the fault system
immediately bounding the southern margin of the modern graben
floor (Fig. 2). This fault system is located north of the MGBF and
extends from Dereköy to Yeniköy by means of numerous overstepping
fault segments (Fig. 2).
The three seismic stratigraphic units defined in Fig. 12 indicate
changes in the depositional system, which result in stratal reorienta-
tion and the formation of the bounding surfaces between the units.
These bounding surfaces are not significant erosional surfaces or

Fig. 15. A transverse seismic section and its interpretation that defines a sedimentary wedge adjacent to northern margin-bounding fault system. This wedge is important to constrain
timing of faulting at the northern margin as it is the first evidence of southward prograding deposition sourced by northern margin.
72 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
unconformities that are sites of major time gaps. Although, local and
minor erosion may be incorporated with these surfaces particularly
towards the margins of the graben, there is no evidence of major
erosion or lost section with in the graben fill. Towards the active
southern margin, however, these surfaces may correlate to the
unconformities recognized on the surface exposures. In rift basins,
minor and local unconformities tend to develop with block rotation
and shift in the locus of extension yet they rarely represent major
hiatus (cf. Moretti and Colleta, 1987, 1988; Coletta et al., 1988). The
main cause of the discrete seismic stratigraphic units and intervening
bounding surfaces is probably more related to the activity of the
graben-bounding faults. Change in the rate of subsidence and/or
deposition, change in the geometry of the graben-bounding structures
and spatial evolution of the graben can easily influence the deposi-
tional patterns and lead to formation of discrete sediment packages
and intervening surfaces.
7. Discussions
7.1. Facies and thickness distribution
Miocene units of the Gediz Graben were deposited in alluvial, fluvial
and lacustrine environments each of which is represented by character-
istic facies associations. These associations grade into each other
spatially, as a function of distance to the southern margin structure;
i.e. the main graben-bounding fault (MGBF) (Fig. 2). There is a distinct
asymmetry in the graben for the favour of the southern margin. This
asymmetry is reflected not only by facies distribution but also by
thickness variations of the seismic stratigraphic units. Alluvial deposits
with coarse-grained facies dominate the vicinity of the MGBF and
rapidly grades into finer fractions of fluvial and/or lacustrine systems
away from the margin (Fig. 16). In a similar way, depocentre of the
seismic stratigraphic units lie adjacent to MGBF away from which the
Fig. 16. Schematic cross-section illustrating the facies and thickness distribution of Miocene formations along a section orthogonal graben strike. Related measured sections (MS) and
boreholes (BH) are approximately located on the cross-section to refer encountered lithologies. The half graben configuration of the Gediz Graben is well illustrated by thickness and
facies distribution of the Miocene formations.
thickness apparently decreases towards the north (Figs. 12 and 13).
Fig. 16 schematically depicts this south to north variation that there is a
distinct decrease in average grain size, amount of gravity-driven relative
to water-driven processes and the thickness of the formations. It is
obvious that the sediment was derived mainly from the southern
margin because it was the only active margin and the basin was a half
graben during the Miocene.
The Miocene depositional architecture is typified by alluvial fans
formed along the fault-controlled southern margin and grades
northward into finer fractions of fluvial and/or lacustrine systems
(Fig. 16). This architecture repeated three times during the Miocene
and deposited Alaşehir, Çaltılık and Gediz formations. The facies and
thickness evidence presented here contradicts to studies claiming that
the Alaşehir Formation was deposited in approximately N–S-trending
basins (Yazman et al., 1998; Yılmaz et al., 2000). Instead, it can be
confirmed that thickness and facies distribution of the Alaşehir
Formation are well conformable with the Gediz Graben in which the
formation was actually deposited. On the other hand, limited spatial
distribution of the formation in the graben is most likely related to
temporal and spatial evolution of the graben (cf. Davies et al., 2000;
Cowie et al., 2000; Gawthorpe and Leeder, 2000).
Although the active basin margin did not change during the
Miocene, it was probably stepped to the north before the deposition of
the Gediz Formation because no evidence can be observed for the
existence of this formation to the south of the MGBF (Fig. 16). On the
other hand, the asymmetry of the graben was still preserved during
the deposition of the Gediz Formation (Figs. 12 and 16).
The Miocene depositional architecture described above was
altered during the post-Miocene period. The main reason of this
change is the fact that the northern margin-boundingstructure has
formed and the graben started to experience a subsidence that is more
evenly partitioned between the northern and southern margins. Thus,
the Miocene half graben configuration was changed into a graben by
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
the post-Miocene period. The evidence for this is provided by the lack of
significant thickness difference in the post-Miocene deposits between
the two margins of the graben (Figs. 10 and 13). Accommodation
creation at the northern margin during post-Miocene time was
considerably higher compared to the Miocene formations (Figs. 12
and 13). Furthermore, first evidence of southward prograding deposi-
tion sourced from the northern margin is documented by the seismic
data (Fig. 15). Thus, sediment influx to the graben became bipolar and
sourced from the both margins. Surface geology of the post-Miocene
formations also supports the bipolar sediment influx in a way that
sediment derived from southern horst block deposited the Kaletepe
Formation along the southern margin whereas the sediment derived
from northern horst block deposited the Bintepeler Formation along the
northern margin (Fig. 2). Accordingly, the Kaletepe and Bintepeler
formations are interpreted as age equivalents deposited at southern and
northern margins, respectively. Similar symmetrical subsidence can also
be inferred for the overlying Quaternary alluviums of loose conglom-
erates and sands (Fig. 10).
7.2. Unconformities and bounding surfaces
Seismic profiles from the graben revealed existence of two distinct
surfaces defined by onlap or truncation of the reflections (e.g., Fig. 12).
These bounding surfaces can be traced across the entire graben around
Alaşehir. Similar type of bounding surfaces or unconformities are
important feature of the stratigraphy of the continental rift basins.
Olsen (1997), for example, subdivided the syn-rift strata of central
Atlantic rift basins into four packages based on these surfaces and named
them as tectonostratigraphic packages. The bounding surfaces observed
within the rift basins could represent time gaps as unconformities or they
can be produced by a change in the dynamics of the depositional system
during continuous deposition (cf. Olsen, 1997; Contreras and Scholz,
2001). Therefore, it is not straight forward to interpret the bounding
surfaces observed in Gediz Graben as the expression of regional events
such as changes in the tectonic regime (Yazman et al., 1998; Yılmaz et al.,
2000). It is a well-known concept today that stratigraphic variability and
basin development is closely related to the fault growth and fault array
evolution (cf. Gupta et al., 1998; Cowie et al., 2000; Davies et al., 2000;
Gawthorpe and Leeder, 2000). New studies from the Gediz Graben
document evidence that fault segment linkage is a significant process in
the evolution of large normal faults such as MGBF (Bozkurt and Sözbilir,
2006; Çiftçi and Bozkurt, 2007, 2008). It is very likely that, formation of
the bounding surfaces in the Gediz Graben is local a phenomenon that is
related to dynamics of the graben margin evolution, which includes, but
not limited to strain localization, shift of main sediment entry points and
climatic changes. In a computer modelling effort of rift stratigraphy,
Contreras and Scholz (2001) have generated similar bounding surfaces by
simply changing the climatic conditions during a continuous deposition
to affect the sediment supply to the basin.
A distinct angular unconformity is observable between the Gediz and
Kaletepe formations and separates the Miocene and post-Miocene
formations (Figs. 2 and 3). When correlated with the buried graben
block, this unconformity becomes almost obscure within the uppermost
SSU-III (Figs. 12 and 13). It can be only correlated to a seismic surface
adjacent to the northern margin where the southward prograding
sedimentary wedge was identified (Fig. 15). Note that basin margins are
the most intense site of deformation and are more prone to develop-
ment of local unconformities due to tilting and rotation of fault blocks.
Away from the basin margins, these unconformities may translate into
correlative conformities. This might be the case for the Miocene–post-
Miocene unconformity in the Gediz Graben (Fig. 3).
7.3. Evolution of the depositional system
Fig. 17 schematically illustrate the evolution of the depositional
system in the Gediz Graben based on the data presented so far.
73
Deposition in the graben starts with the Alaşehir Formation in front of
fault controlled relief (Fig. 17A). A fan-delta complex comprising FA1,
FA2 and FA3 facies developed adjacent to this relief carrying
sediments into the lacustrine basin which is represented by the FA4
of the formation. The along-strike dimensions of the fault controlling
the basin were probably much limited than today's dimensions of the
MGBF. This resulted in discontinuous deposition of the Alaşehir
Formation within the realm that advanced to modern Gediz Graben.
Although available literature assigns Early–Middle Miocene age for
the Alaşehir Formation (İztan and Yazman, 1990; Seyitoğlu and Scott,
1992; Ediger et al., 1996), data from borehole constraints, based on the
presence of volcanic rocks in the formation, places this depositional
period into Middle Miocene.
As the extension accumulates, the bounding structure has grown
and the basin widened in strike-wise sense during the deposition of
the Çaltılık Formation (Fig. 17B). Yet, increased sediment supply
probably enhanced the alluvial fans compared to the preceding period
and the basin became dominated by the FA5. The lacustrine basin
shrank in size and retreated towards the northern margin of the
graben where limestone facies of the FA6 become the main phase of
deposition (Fig. 17B).
Deposition of the Gediz Formation was followed by a major
modification of the southern margin, which migrated basinward by
means of a new fault (Fig. 17C). This new fault was the precursor of
MGBF south of which no evidence for the deposition of Gediz
Formation exists. Alluvial fans of FA7 fed the graben and an axially
oriented fluvial system has developed (FA8). There is no facies
evidence for a lacustrine basin during this period.
Fig. 17D illustrates the post-Miocene configuration of the graben.
The northern margin was faulted and the basin started to receive
sediment influx from both southern and northern margins. An axially
oriented fluvial system became the main agent of sediment
transportation and deposition although processes related to alluvial
fans still persisted along the margins.
The evolution presented above indicates a large-scale strati-
graphic transition from lacustrine processes to alluvial/fluvial
processes where earlier phases of deposition was dominated by
lacustrine systems (Fig. 17A) that gradually shrank in size with time
(Fig. 17B); finally the system was occupied entirely by alluvial and/
or fluvial deposits (Fig. 17C and D). Indeed, this trend, which starts
with lacustrine deposits and changes up-section to coarse-grained
fluvial sediments, is not specific to the Gediz Graben but it has been
reported from the number of similar basins and computer-based
simulations of the continental rifts (e.g., Lambiase, 1990; Schlische,
1993; Jansen et al., 1995; Lambiase and Bosworth, 1995; Contreras
et al., 1997; Contreras and Scholz, 2001). This large-scale strati-
graphic transition is controlled primarily by the decrease of basin
capacity (or accommodation space) with respect to sediment
supply. Lacustrine systems are favourable when the capacity exceeds
the sediment supply. During the earlier phase of extension in the
Gediz Graben, the accumulated tensional strain was low as the relief
between the horst and graben blocks. This low relief was favourable
for relatively low amount of sediment influx from the horst and
resulted in basin capacity being greater than the sediment supply.
This has formed the lacustrine basin of the Alaşehir Formation
(Fig. 17A). Accumulated extensional strain, however, has increased
the relief between the horst and graben blocks and resulted in
increased amount of erosion of the horst block and increased rate of
deposition in the graben. This has increased the sediment supply
compared to the basin capacity and the lacustrine basin gradually
filled up during the deposition of the Çaltılık Formation (Fig. 17B).
The alluvial and fluvial depositional systems finally became
dominant starting with the Gediz Formation, as they are more
compatible with the increased rate of sedimentation (Fig. 17C and
D). The axial fluvial system has beencarrying the excess sediment
out of the graben.
 74
N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Fig. 17. Block diagrams illustrating conceptual schematic palaeogeography of the main depositional periods in the Gediz Graben. (A) Alaşehir Formation (Miocene). FA1 — alluvial fan facies association; FA2 — lacustrine fan delta/delta front
facies association; FA3 — coastal plain marsh facies association; FA4 — lacustrine basin facies association. (B) Çaltılık Formation (Miocene). FA5 — alluvial fan facies associations; FA6 — small lake or pond facies associations. (C) Gediz Formation
(Miocene–Pliocene?). Alaşehir and Çaltılık formations are represented by most typical lithology of the formation. FA7 — proximal alluvial fan facies associations; FA8 — distal alluvial fan and fluvial facies associations. (D) Current configuration
of the Gediz Graben with both Miocene and post-Miocene formations. See Tables 1–6 for the definition of facies and facies associations.
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
7.4. Regional synthesis
Gediz Graben shares many similarities with the other western
Anatolian grabens such as Büyük Menderes (Sözbilir and Emre, 1990;
Seyitoğlu and Scott, 1992; Bozkurt, 2000, 2001b; Şen and Seyitoğlu,
2002), Küçük Menderes (Bozkurt and Rojay, 2005; Rojay et al., 2005;
Emre and Sözbilir, 2007), Bakırçay (Yılmaz et al., 2000), Gökova (Görür
et al., 1995), Edremit (Çiftçi et al., 2004; Beccaletto and Steiner, 2005)
and Denizli (Koçyiğit 2005; Alçiçek et al., 2007) grabens (Fig. 1). In all
these examples, deposition commenced by the early (?)–middle
Miocene with alluvial-fan systems that developed adjacent to graben-
bounding structures. Distal to alluvial fans, lacustrine basins have
occurred locally only if the basin capacity exceeded the sediment influx.
In larger grabens with very active bounding structures and high rate of
subsidence, such as Büyük Menderes and Gediz grabens, this condition
seems to hold relatively early in the deposition history after which the
sediment supply cannot be compensated. This resulted in shoaling of the
lacustrine basins and dominance of alluvio-fluvial systems afterwards.
In some basins, such as Denizli Basin, lacustrine environment sustained
much longer provided that the rate of sedimentation is well compen-
sated (Alçiçek et al., 2007). Coals are observable in variable amounts in
association with marginal lacustrine deposits in almost all of the
grabens. In general, lacustrine deposits are overlain by red clastics which
in turn are overlain by poorly consolidated buff coloured sediments. On
the other hand, upper Miocene evaporites reported from the Denizli
basin (Alçiçek et al., 2007) are not observed in the Gediz Graben as well
as in the other E–W-oriented grabens because the lacustrine basins had
already filled up by that time.
Alçiçek et al. (2007) documented detailed record of climate
changes from the Denizli Graben and justified its influence on the
evolution of the depositional system. Although it is very likely that
these climatic changes also affected the deposition in the Gediz
Graben, they were probably surpassed by the mechanical control of
the southern margin-bounding structure. Yet, there is a common point
that both basins evolved as a half graben during most of their Neogene
history and then established their current graben configuration by
faulting of the northern margins.
Similar basin fill is observable as north as the Edremit Graben
where the basal alluvial deposits are overlain by the lacustrine
Küçükkuyu Formation which bears many similarities to the Alaşehir
Formation (Yılmaz et al., 2000; Yılmaz and Karacık, 2001; Çiftçi et al.,
2004; Becceletto and Steiner, 2005). Although alluvial and fluvial
sediments dominate the clastic deposition above the Küçükkuyu
Formation, the whole Neogene section has received significant
volcanic input by means of several episodes during Miocene and
Pliocene (Yılmaz et al., 2000; Yılmaz and Karacık, 2001; Çiftçi et al.,
2004). This volcanic influence is also noticeable in the sedimentary fill
of the Bakırçay Graben (Yılmaz et al., 2000). Gediz Graben, on the
other hand, bears almost no evidence to this volcanic activity except
for the thin ash layers interpreted in the borehole logs.
Miocene graben development can further be extended into the
neighbouring areas particularly to the entire Aegean province. Across
the mainland Greece, series of NW–SE-trending asymmetrical grabens
host lacustrine/marine deposits overlain by terrestrial conglomerates
up to 1000 m thickness (e.g., Doutsos et al., 1988; Poulimenos et al.,
1989). Evolution of these grabens correlates well with the post-
Miocene evolution of the Gediz Graben as their fill usually 5–6 Ma in
age (Jolivet and Patriat, 1999). Although, most of these grabens are
bounded by high-angle normal faults, seismic data suggest that these
faults are rotated into lower angles at depth (Jolivet and Patriat, 1999),
similar to the Gediz Graben (Çiftçi and Bozkurt, in press).
There is also strong similarity between the Gediz Graben and late
Cenozoic half grabens of the Basin and Range province of US in terms
of depositional architecture. Some of these include Pine Valley
(Gordon and Heller, 1993), Safford Basin (Krugger et al., 1995), and
the Mormon and Mesquite subbasins in the Virgin River depression
75
(Bohannon et al., 1993). All of these basins show some degree of half
graben development along a major range and basin bounding listric
fault. They are all characterized by proximal fan deposits adjacent to
major bounding fault that laterally grades into lake-bed sediments or
fluvio–lacustrine deposition (Gordon and Heller, 1993). General
thickening of units towards the major bounding fault(s) and location
of the main depocentre slightly basinward of the bounding fault are
the other common points.
7.5. Implications for the evolution of the extensional regime
The fill of the Gediz Graben can be differentiated into several
packages based on internal strata patterns and bounding surfaces
observed in the seismic data. However, there is not enough evidence
to assign these packages into separate phases of deformation (Yazman
et al., 1998; Yılmaz et al., 2000). These surfaces are very common in
graben basins and form in relation to temporal-spatial evolution of the
grabens (see Section 5.2) but they hardly represent a break in the
deposition. Furthermore, the distinct angular unconformity observed
between the Miocene and post-Miocene formations is apparently
specific to southern margin and translates into correlative conformity
within the buried graben block.
It is worth nothing that comparable unconformities were reported
from the other western Anatolian basins (e.g., Sözbilir and Emre, 1990;
Seyitoğlu and Scott,1992; Sözbilir and Emre, 1996; Seyitoğlu et al., 2000;
Yılmaz et al., 2000; Seyitoğlu et al., 2002; Purvis and Robertson, 2004,
2005a,b; Emre and Sözbilir, 2007; Ersoy and Helvacı, 2007). Precise
correlation of these unconformities among the basins is not a straight
forward effort due to lack of sufficient age data. Although we have no
real evidence from the Gediz Graben that the exposed unconformity
between the Miocene and younger lithologies exist in the subsurface
within the graben fill, we think that the occurrence of angular
unconformity at the very similar and/or the same stratigraphic levels
in almost all of the E–W-trending grabens (Edremit, Bakırçay, Küçük
Menderes, Büyük Menderes, Denizli and Gökova grabens) cannot be a
coincidence but may imply the existence of a more regional unconfor-
mity and a break in stratigraphic record. Furthermore, there is also a very
good correlation between the Miocene–post-Miocene unconformity
and the change of the garben architecture from Miocene half graben
configuration to post-Miocene graben configuration. It is possible that a
change in the graben dynamics led to change in the graben architecture
and caused two different phases in the evolution. As the associated
unconformity surface indicate a time of erosion and hiatus, the
definition of deformation phase (Passciher and Trouw, 1996) preclude
to attribute Miocene and post-Miocene events into a single phase of
deformation but suggests two distinct phases during which the
orientation of stress axes and style of deformation (N–S-directed
continental extension) have not changed.
A promising relationship can be speculated between the change of
graben architecture with associated unconformity and the ‘tectonic
escape’ of the Anatolian microplate along its boundary structures dextral
North Anatolian and sinistral East Anatolian fault systems. Super-
imposed on to the preceding causes of the Miocene extension (e.g.,
subduction roll-back; orogenic collapse), ‘tectonic escape’ certainly had a
potential to change the dynamics of the extension in the region. From
this time onwards, the ~N–S extension in southwest Turkey can be
attributed to the combined effect of westward extrusion of Anatolia into
the Aegean and slab roll-back along the Aegean–Cyprian trench (e.g.,
Bozkurt and Mittwede, 2005; Bozkurt, 2007; ten Veen et al., in press).
The southward accelerating extension in the region is well expressed by
present-day GPS velocity fields (McClusky et al., 2000; Reilinger et al.,
2006). Therefore, the evolution of the graben could be a two-episode
process expressed by Miocene half graben configuration and post-
Miocene graben configuration with inherited asymmetry.
What happened between the two episodes still remained
unresolved. Evidence for an ntervening contractional phase has
76 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
been provided by numerous studies (Koçyiğit et al., 1999; Bozkurt,
2000, 2001b; Koçyiğit and Özacar, 2003; Kaya et al., 2004, 2007;
Beccaletto and Steiner, 2005; Bozkurt and Rojay, 2005; Rojay et al.,
2005; Bozkurt and Sözbilir, 2006; Emre and Sözbilir, 2007). More
recently, Çiftçi and Bozkurt (2008) documented data for thrust/
reverse faults and associated folds in the Alaşehir Formation. Yet, they
also noted the difficulty of relating these structures to a regional
tectonic phase. This reserves a possibility for pulsed extension in the
Gediz Graben as already suggested by Purvis and Robertson (2005a).
8. Conclusions
• Gediz Graben has evolved as a half graben with active southern
margin during Miocene and hosted the deposition of Alaşehir,
Çaltılık and Gediz formations. Accordingly, these formations display
south to north facies change and decreases of thickness to emphasize
the southern horst block as the main site of sediment supply. During
the post-Miocene period the half graben architecture was modified
by faulting of the northern margin and the graben started to receive
sediment influx from both southern and northern margins.
• There is distinct trend in the evolution of the depositional system
from lacustrine dominated to alluvio-fluvial dominated. This trend
clearly indicates the changing balance between the sediment supply
and basin capacity. In the earlier stages, the basin capacity was high
with respect to sediment supply and lacustrine basins have
developed. This relation is gradually reversed and the sediment
supply became uncompensated. Then, axial fluvial systems have
developed to carry the excess sediments out of the basin.
• Facies and thickness distribution of the Alaşehir Formation is
conformable with the Gediz Graben. This suggests that the
formation was deposited within the Gediz Graben. Along strike
limitation of the formation is related to lateral extent of the graben
during the deposition of the formation.
• The evolution of the Gediz Graben is probably two-episode process
which is emphasized by the change of graben architecture from
Miocene half graben configuration to post-Miocene graben config-
uration with inherited asymmetry. The two episodes could
represent successive pulses of extension.
Acknowledgements
This research is part of NBÇ's PhD work which is founded partly by
METU Research Foundation grants BAP-2004-03-09-04 and BAP-
2006-03-09-01, and by TÜBİTAK grant 104Y154. TPAO is kindly
acknowledged for providing the subsurface data. The authors are
thankful to Hülya Alçiçek, Chris Fielding and the two anonymous
reviewers for their invaluable critics and comments that improved an
early version of the paper.
References
Abdul Aziz, H., Sanz-Rubio, E., Calvo, J.P., Hilgen, F.J., Krijgsman, W., 2003. Palaeoenviron-
mental reconstruction of a Middle Miocene alluvial fan to cyclic shallow lacustrine
depositional system in the Calatayud Basin (NE Spain). Sedimentology 50, 211–236.
Alçiçek, H., Varol, B., Özkul, M., 2007. Sedimentary facies, depositional environments
and palaeogeographic evolution of the Neogene Denizli Basin, SW Anatolia, Turkey.
Sedimentary Geology 202, 596–637.
Aldanmaz, E., 2006. Mineral-chemical constraints on the Miocene calc-alkaline and
shoshonitic volcanic rocks of Western Turkey: disequilibrium phenocryst assem-
blages as indicators of magma storage and mixing conditions. Turkish Journal of
Earth Sciences 15, 47–73.
Altunkaynak, S., 2007. Collision-driven slab break-off magmatism in northwestern
Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of Geology 115, 63–82.
Asquith, G., 1982. Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists. AAPG Methods in Exploration
Series Number, vol. 3. AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists), Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Asquith, G., Krygowski, D., 2004. Basic Well Log Analysis, Second Edition. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Methods in Exploration Series Number, vol. 16.
AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists), Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Basilici, G., 1997. Sedimentary facies in an extensional and deep-lacustrine depositional
system: the Pliocene Tiberino Basin, Central Italy. Sedimentary Geology 109, 73–94.
Bassetti, M.A., Manzi, V., Lugli, S., Roveri, M., Longinelli, A., Lucchi, F.R., Barbieri, M.,
2004. Paleoenvironmental significance of Messinian post-evaporitic lacustrine
carbonates in the northern Apennines, Italy. Sedimentary Geology 172, 1–18.
Beccaletto, L., Steiner, C., 2005. Evidence of two-stage extensional tectonics from the
northern edge of the Edremit Graben, NW Turkey. Geodinamica Acta 18, 283–297.
Benda, L., Meulenkamp, J.E., 1979. Biostratigraphic correlations in the Eastern
Mediterranean Neogene: 5. Calibration of sporomorph associations, marine
microfossils and mammal zones, marine and continental stages and radiometric
scale. VII. International Congress of Mediterranean Neogene, Athens, pp. 61–70.
Benda, L., Meulenkamp, J.E., 1990. Biostratigraphic correlation in the Eastern
Mediterranean Neogene, 9. Sporomorph associations and event stratigraphy of
the Eastern Mediterranean. Newsletters on Stratigraphy 23, 1–10.
Blair, T.C., 1999. Sedimentology of the debris flow dominated Warm Spring Canyon
alluvial fan, Death Valley, California. Sedimentology 46, 941–965.
Blair, T.C., McPherson, J.G., 1994. Alluvial fans and their natural distinction from rivers
based on morphology, hydraulic processes, sedimentary processes and facies
assemblages. Journal of Sedimentary Research A84, 40–489.
Bohacs, K.M., Carroll, A.R., Neal, J.E., Mankiewicz, P.J., 2000. Lake-basin type, source
potential, and hydrocarbon character: an integrated sequence-stratigraphic-
geochemical framework. In: Gierlowski-Kordesch, E.H., Kelts, K.R. (Eds.), Lake
Basins Through Space and Time. American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Studies in Geology No. 46, pp. 3–33.
Bohacs, K.M., Carroll, A.R., Neal, J.E., 2003. Lessons from large lake systems-thresholds,
nonlinearity, and strange attractors. In: Chan, M.A., Archer, A.W. (Eds.), Extreme
Depositional Environments: Mega End Members in Geologic Time. Geological
Society of America Special Paper, vol. 370, pp. 75–90.
Bohannon, R.G., Grow, J.A., Miller, J.J., Blank, R.H., 1993. Seismic stratigraphy and tectonic
development of Virgin River depression and associated basins, southeastern Nevada
and northwestern Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin 105, 501–520.
Bouma, A.H., 1962. Sedimentology of some flysch deposits. Elseveir, Amsterdam.
Bozkurt, E., 2000. Timing of Extension on the Büyük Menderes Graben, Western Turkey
and its tectonic implications. In: Bozkurt, E., Winchester, J.A., Piper, J.D.A. (Eds.),
Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey and the Surrounding Area. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications 173, 385–403.
Bozkurt, E., 2001a. Neotectonics of Turkey — a synthesis. Geodinamica Acta 14, 3–30.
Bozkurt, E., 2001b. Late Alpine evolution of central Menderes Massif, western Anatolia,
Turkey. International Journal of Earth Sciences 89, 728–744.
Bozkurt, E., 2003. Origin of NE-trending basins in western Turkey. Geodinamica Acta 16,
61–81.
Bozkurt, E., 2004. Granitoid rocks of the Southern Menderes Massif (southwest
Turkey): field evidence for Tertiary magmatism in an extensional shear zone.
International Journal of Earth Sciences 93, 52–71.
Bozkurt, E., 2007. Extensional vs contractional origin for the southern Menderes shear
zone, SW Turkey: tectonic and metamorphic implications. Geological Magazine
144, 191–210.
Bozkurt, E., Park, R.G., 1994. Southern Menderes Massif: an incipient metamorphic core
complex in western Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of the Geological Society, London 151,
213–216.
Bozkurt, E., Sözbilir, H., 2004. Tectonic evolution of the Gediz Graben: field evidence for an
episodic, two-stage extension in western Turkey. Geological Magazine 141, 63–79.
Bozkurt, E., Mittwede, S.K., 2005. Introduction: evolution of Neogene extensional
tectonics of western Turkey. Geodinamica Acta 18, 153–165.
Bozkurt, E., Rojay, B., 2005. Episodic, two-stage Neogene extension and short-term
intervening compression in Western Turkey: field evidence from the Kiraz Basin
and Bozdağ Horst. Geodinamica Acta 18, 299–316.
Bozkurt, E., Sözbilir, H., 2006. Evolution of the large-scale active Manisa Fault,
southwest Turkey: implications on fault development and regional tectonics.
Geodinamica Acta 19, 427–453.
Cabrera, L., Hageman, H.W., Pickel, W., Saez, A., 1995. The coal bearing Cenozoic As
Pontes Basin (Galicia, NW Spain): geological influence on its coal's characteristics.
International Journal of Coal Geology 27, 201–226.
Cavazza, W., Okay, A.İ., Zattin, M., in press. Rapid early–middle Miocene exhumation of
the Kazdağ Massif (western Anatolia). International Journal of Earth Sciences.
doi: 10.1007/s00531-008-0353-9.
Çiftçi, N.B., Bozkurt, E., 2007. Anomalous stress field and active breaching at relay
ramps: a field example from Gediz Graben, SW Turkey. Geological Magazine 144,
687–699.
Çiftçi, N.B., Bozkurt, E., 2008. Folding of the Gediz Graben fill, SW Turkey: extensional
and/or contractional origin? Geodinamica Acta 21, 145–167.
Çiftçi, N.B., Bozkurt, E., in press. Pattern of normal faulting in the Gediz Graben, SW
Turkey: Tectonophysics. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.05.036.
Çiftçi, N.B., Temel, R.Ö., Terzioğlu, N., 2004. Neogene stratigraphy and hydrocarbon
system of the region surrounding the Gulf of Edremit, NW Anatloia, Turkey. Turkish
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 16, 81–104.
Cohen, H.A., Dart, C.J., Akyüz, H.S., Barka, A.A., 1995. Syn-rift sedimentation and
structural development of Gediz and Büyük Menderes graben, western Turkey.
Journal of the Geological Society, London 152, 629–638.
Coletta, B., LeQuellec, P., Letousey, J., Moretti, I., 1988. Longitudinal evolution of Suez rift
structure (Egypt). Tectonophysics 153, 221–233.
Collinson, J.D., 1996. Alluvial sediments. In: Reading, H.G. (Ed.), Sedimentary
Environments: Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp.
37–83.
Contreras, J.C., Scholz, H., 2001. Evolution of stratigraphic sequences in multisegmented
continental rift basins: comparison of computer models with the basins of the East
Africa rift system. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 85,
156–1581.
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Contreras, J.C., Scholz, H., King, J.C.P., 1997. A model of rift basin evolution constrained by
first order stratigraphic observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 102,
7673–7690.
Cowie, P.A., Gupta, S., Dawers, N.H., 2000. Implications of fault array evolution for synrift
depocentre development: insights from a numerical fault growth model. Basin
Research 12, 241–261.
Dabio, C.J., 1990. Fan-delta facies association in late Neogene and Quaternary basins of
southeastern Spain. In: Colella, A., Prior, D.B. (Eds.), Coarse-Grained Deltas. Special
Publication of the International Association of Sedimentologists, vol. 10, pp. 91–112. 8.
Davies, S.J., Gibling, M.R., 2003. Architecture of coastal and alluvial deposits in an
extensional basin: the Carboniferous Joggins Formation of eastern Canada.
Sedimentology 50, 415–439.
Davies, S.J., Dawers, N.H., McLeod, A.E., Underhill, J.R., 2000. The structural and
sedimentological evolution of early synrift successions: the Middle Jurassic Tarbert
Formation, North Sea. Basin Research 12, 343–365.
Dewey, J.D., 1988. Extensional collapse of orogens. Tectonics 7, 1123–1139.
Dewey, J.F., Şengör, A.M.C., 1979. Aegean and surrounding region: complex multiplate and
continuum tectonics in a convergent zone. Geological Society of America Bulletin 90,
84–92.
Dilek, Y., Altunkaynak, Ş., 2007. Cenozoic crustal evolution and mantle dynamics of
post-collisional magmatism in Western Anatolia. International Geology Review 49,
431–453.
Doglioni, C., Agostini, S., Crespi, M., Innocenti, F., Manetti, P., Riguzzi, F., Savaşçın, Y.,
2002. On the extension in western Anatolia and the Aegean Sea. Journal of Virtual
Exploration 8, 169–183.
Doutsos, T., Kontopoulosa, N., Poulimenos, G., 1988. The Corinth-Patras rift as the initial
stage of continental fragmentation behind an active island arc (Greece). Basin
Research 1, 177–190.
Ediger, V.Ş., Batı, Z., Yazman, M., 1996. Paleopalynology of possible hydrocarbon source
rocks of the Alaşehir-Turgutlu area in the Gediz Graben (western Anatolia). Turkish
Association of Petroleum Geologists 8, 94–112.
Emre, T., 1996. Geology and tectonics of Gediz Graben. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences
5, 171–185.
Emre, T., Sözbilir, H., 2007. Tectonic evolution of the Kiraz Basin, Küçük Menderes
Graben: evidence for compression/uplift-related basin formation overprinted by
extensional tectonics in West Anatolia. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 16,
441–470.
Ercan, E., Satır, M., Sevin, A., Türkecan, A., 1997. Batı Anadoludaki Tersiyer ve Kuvaterner
yaşlı volkanik kayaçlarda yeni yapılan radiometrik yaş ölçümlerinin yorumu. MTA
Bulletin 119, 103–112.
Erkül, F., Helvacı, H., Sözbilir, H., 2005. Stratigraphy and geochronology of the Early
Miocene volcanic units in the Bigadiç borate basin, Western Turkey. Turkish Journal
of Earth Sciences 14, 227–253.
Ersoy, Y., Helvacı, C., 2007. Stratigraphy and geochemical features of the Early Miocene
bimodal (ultrapotassic and calc-alkaline) volcanic activity within the NE-trending
Selendi Basin, Western Anatolia, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 16, 117–139.
Ersoy, Y., Helvacı, C., Sözbilir, H., Erkül, F., Bozkurt, E., 2008. A geochemical approach to
Neogene–Quaternary volcanic activity of western Anatolia: an example of episodic
bimodal volcanism within the Selendi Basin, Turkey. Chemical Geology 255,
265–282.
Eyidoğan, H., Jackson, J.A., 1985. A seismological study of normal faulting in the Demirci,
Alaşehir and Gediz earthquake of 1960–1970 in western Turkey: implications for
the nature and geometry of deformation in the continental crust. Geophysical
Journal of Royal Astronomy Society 81, 569–607.
Firuzan, E., 2008. Statistical earthquake frequency analysis for western Anatolia. Turkish
Journal of Earth Sciences 17, 741–762.
Gawthorpe, R.L., Leeder, M.R., 2000. Tectono-sedimentary evolution of active exten-
sional basins. Basin Research 12, 195–218.
Gessner, K., Piazolo, S., Güngör, T., 2001b. Tectonic significance of deformation patterns
in granitoid rocks of the Menderes Nappes, Anatolide belt, southwest Turkey.
International Journal of Earth Sciences 89, 766–780.
Gessner, K., Ring, U., Johnson, C., Hetzel, R., Passchier, C.W., Güngör, T., 2001a. An active
bivergent rolling-hinge detachment system: Central Menderes metamorphic core
complex in western Turkey. Geology 29, 611–614.
Glodny, J., Hetzel, R., 2007. Prices U–Pb ages of syn-extensional Miocene intrusions in
the central Menderes Massif, western Turkey. Geological Magazine 144, 235–246.
Gordon, I., Heller, P.L., 1993. Evaluating major controls on basinal stratigraphy, Pine
Valley, Nevada: implications for syntectonic deposition. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 101, 96–105.
Görür, N., Şengör, A.M.C., Sakınç, M., Tüysüz, O., Akkök, R., Yiğitbaş, E., Oktay, F.Y., Barka,
A., Sarıca, N., Ecevitoğlu, B., Demirbağ, E., Ersoy, S., Algan, O., Güneysu, C., Ayköl, A.,
1995. Rift formation in the Gökova region, southwestern Anatolia: implications for
the opening of the Aegean sea. Geological Magazine 132, 637–650.
Gupta, S., Cowie, P.A., Dawers, N.H., Underhill, J.R., 1998. A mechanism to explain rift
basin subsidence and stratigraphic patterns through fault array evolution. Geology
26, 595–598.
Hetzel, R., Passchier, C.W., Ring, U., Dora, O.Ö., 1995a. Bivergent extension in orogenic
belts: the Menderes Massif (SW Turkey). Geology 23, 455–458.
Hetzel, R., Ring, U., Akal, C., Troesch, M., 1995b. Miocene NNE-directed extensional
unroofing in the Menderes Massif, southwestern Turkey. Journal of the Geological
Society, London 152, 639–654.
Hetzel, R., Romer, R.L., Candan, O., Passchier, C.W., 1998. Geology of the Bozdag area,
central Menderes Massif, SW Turkey: Pan-African basement and Alpine deforma-
tion. Geologische Rundschau 87, 394–406.
İnci, U., 2002. Depositional evolution of Miocene coal successions in the Soma coalfield,
western Turkey. International Journal of Coal Geology 51, 1–29.
77
Işık, V., Tekeli, O., 2001. Late orogenic crustal extension in the northern Menderes Massif
(western Turkey): evidences for metamorphic core complex formation. Interna-
tional Journal of Earth Sciences 89, 757–765.
Işık, V., Seyitoğlu, G., Çemen, İ., 2003. Ductile-brittle transition along the Alaşehir
detachment fault and its structural relationship with the Simav detachment fault,
Menderes Massif, western Turkey. Tectonophysics 374, 1–18.
Işık, V., Tekeli, O., Seyitoğlu, G., 2004. The 40Ar/39Ar age of extensional ductile
deformation and granitoid intrusion in the northern Menderes core complex:
implications for the initiation of extensional tectonics in western Turkey. Journal of
Asian Earth Sciences 23, 555–566.
İztan, H., Yazman, M., 1990. Geology and hydrocarbon potential of the Alaşehir (Manisa)
area, western Turkey. In: Savaşçın, M.Y., Eronat, A.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of
International Earth Sciences Congress, Aegean Region, İzmir, pp. 327–333.
İztan, H., Yazman, M., 1991. Geology and hydrocarbon potential of the Alaşehir (Manisa)
area, western Turkey. Proceedings of the International Earth Sciences Congress on
Aegean Regions, İzmir, pp. 327–338.
Jackson, J., McKenzie, D., 1988. The relationship between plate motions and seismic
moment tensors and rates of active deformation in the Mediterranean and Middle
East. Geophysical Journal 93, 45–73.
Jansen, M.E., Stephenson, R.A., Cloethingh, S., 1995. Temporal and spatial correlations
between changes in plate motions and the evolution of rifted basins in Africa.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 107, 1317–1332.
Johnson, C.L., Graham, S.A., 2004. Sedimentology and reservoir architecture of a synrift
lacustrine delta, southeastern Mongolia. Journal of Sedimentary Research 74, 770–785.
Jolivet, L., Patriat, M., 1999. Ductile extension and the formation of the Aegean Sea. In:
Durand, B., Jolivet, L., Seranne, M. (Eds.), The Mediterranean Basins: Tertiary
Extension Within the Alpine Orogen. Geological Society, London, Special Publica-
tions, vol. 156, pp. 356–427.
Karacık, Z., Yılmaz, Y., Pearce, J.A., 2007. The Dikili-Çandarlı volcanics, Western Turkey:
magmatic interactions as recorded by petrographic and geochemical features.
Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 16, 493–522.
Kaya, O., Ünay, E., Saraç, G., Eichhorn, S., Hassenrück, S., Knappe, A., Pekdeğer, A., Mayda,
S., 2004. Halitpaşa transpressive zone: implications for an Early Pliocene
compressional phase in central western Anatolia, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth
Sciences 13, 1–13.
Kaya, O., Ünay, E., Göktaş, F., Saraç, G., 2007. Early Miocene stratigraphy of Central West
Anatolia, Turkey: implications for the tectonic evolution of the Eastern Aegean area.
Geological Journal 42, 85–109.
Kaymakcı, N., 2005. Kinematic development and paleostress analysis of the Denizli
Basin (Western Turkey): implications of spatial variation of relative paleostress
magnitudes and orientations. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 27, 207–222.
Kaymakcı, N., Aldanmaz, E., Langereis, C., Spell, T.L., Gürer, O.F., Zanetti, A.K., 2007. Late
Miocene transcurrent tectonics in NW Turkey: evidence from palaeomagnetism
and 40Ar–39Ar dating of alkaline volcanic rocks. Geological Magazine 144, 379–392.
Kissel, C., Laj, C., 1988. Tertiary geodynamical evolution of the Aegean arc: a
palaeomagnetic reconstruction. Tectonophysics 146, 183–201.
Koçyiğit, A., 2005. The Denizli graben-horst system and the eastern limit of western
Anatolian continental extension: basin fill, structure, deformational mode, throw
amount and episodic evolutionary history. Geodinamica Acta 18, 167–208.
Koçyiğit, A., Özacar, A., 2003. Extensional neotectonic regime through the NE edge of
outer Isparta Angle, SW Turkey: new field and seismic data. Turkish Journal of Earth
Sciences 12, 67–90.
Koçyiğit, A., Deveci, Ş., 2007. A N–S-trending active extensional structure, the Şuhut
(Afyon) graben: commencement age of the extensional neotectonic period in the
Isparta Angle, SW Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 16, 391–416.
Koçyiğit, A., Yusufoğlu, H., Bozkurt, E., 1999. Evidence from the Gediz Graben for
episodic two-stage extension in western Turkey. Journal of the Geological Society,
London 156, 605–616.
Krugger, J.M., Johnson, R.A., House, B.B., 1995. Miocene–Pliocene half graben evolution,
detachment faulting and late stage core complex uplift from reflection seismic data
in south-east Arizona. Basin Research 7, 129–149.
Lambiase, J.J., 1990. A model for tectonic control of lacustrine stratigraphic sequences in
continental rift basins. In: Katz, B. (Ed.), Lacustrine Exploration: Case Studies and
Modern Analogues. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoirs,
vol. 50, pp. 265–276.
Lambiase, J.J., Bosworth, W., 1995. Structural controls on sedimentation in structural
basins. In: Lambiase, J.J. (Ed.), Hydrocarbon Habitat in Rift Basins. Geological
Society Special Publications, vol. 88, pp. 117–144.
Le Pichon, X., Angelier, J., 1979. The Hellenic arc and trench system: a key to the
neotectonic evolution of the eastern Mediterranean area. Tectonophysics 60, 1–42.
Le Pichon, X., Angelier, J., 1981. The Aegean Sea. Philosophical Transactions of Royal
Society, London Seri A 300, 357–372.
Lips, A.L.W., Cassard, D., Sözbilir, H., Yılmaz, Y., 2001. Multistage exhumation of the
Menderes Massif, western Anatolia (Turkey). International Journal of Earth
Sciences 89, 781–792.
McClusky, S., Balassanian, S., Barka, A.A., Demir, C., Ergintav, S., Georgiev, I., Gürkan, O.,
Hamburger, M., Hurst, K., Kahle, H.G., Kastens, K., Kekelidze, G., King, R., Kotzev, V.,
Lenk, O., Mahmoud, S., Mishin, A., Nadariya, M., Ouzounis, A., Paradissis, D., Peter, Y.,
Prilepin, M., Reilinger, R.E., Sanlı, İ., Seeger, H., Tealeb, A., Toksöz, M.N., Veis, G., 2000.
Global Positioning System constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the Eastern
Mediterranean and Caucasus. Journal of Geophysical Research 105, 5695–5720.
McKenzie, D., 1978. Active tectonics of the Alpine-Himalayan belt: the Aegean Sea and
surrounding regions. Geophysical Journal of Astronomical Society 55, 217–254.
McPherson, J.G., Shanmugan, G., Moiola, R., 1988. Fan deltas and braid deltas:
conceptual problems. In: Nemec, W., Steel, R.J. (Eds.), Fan Deltas: Sedimentology
and Tectonic Settings. Blackie, London, pp. 15–22.
78 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Mercier, J.L., 1981. Extensional-compressional tectonics associated with the Aegean arc:
comparison with the Andean Cordillera of south Peru–north Bolivia. Philosophical
Transactions of Royal Society, London Seri A 300, 337–355.
Meulenkamp, J.E., Van Der Zwaan, G.J., Van Wamel, W.A., 1994. On Late Miocene to
recent vertical motions in the Cretan segment of the Hellenic arc. Tectonophysics
234, 53–72.
Meulenkamp, J.E., Wortel, W.J.R., Van Wamel, W.A., Spakman, W., Hoogerduyn Strating,
E., 1988. On the Hellenic subduction zone and geodynamic evolution of Crete in the
late Middle Miocene. Tectonophysics 146, 203–215.
Miall, A.D., 1985. Architectural element analysis: a new method of facies analysis
applied to fluvial deposits. Earth Science Reviews 22, 261–308.
Miall, A.D., 1992. Alluvial deposits. In: Walker, R.G., James, N.P. (Eds.), Facies Models –
Response to Sea Level Change. Geological Association of Canada, St. John's,
New Foundland, pp. 119–143.
Miall, A.D., 1996. The Geology of Fluvial Deposits: Sedimentary Facies, Basin Analysis
and Petroleum Geology. Springer, New York.
Moretti, I., Colleta, B., 1987. Spatial and temporal evolution of the Suez rift subsidence.
Journal of Geodynamics 7, 151–168.
Moretti, I., Colleta, B., 1988. Fault block tilting: the Gebel Zeit example, Gulf of Suez.
Journal of Structural Geology 10, 9–20.
Mutlu, H., 2007. Constraints on the origin of the Balıkesir thermal waters (Turkey) from
stable isotope (δ18O, δD, δ13C, δ34S) and major-trace element compositions. Turkish
Journal of Earth Sciences 16, 13–32.
Nemec, W., Steel, R.J., 1984. Alluvial and coastal conglomerates: their significant
features and some comment on gravelly mass-flow deposits. In: Koster, E.H., Steel,
R.J. (Eds.), Sedimentology of Gravels and Conglomertates. Canadian Society of
Petroleum Geologists Memoirs, vol. 10, pp. 1–31.
Nemec, W., Steel, R.J., 1988. What is a fan delta and how do we recognise it? In: Nemec,
W., Steel, R.J. (Eds.), Fan Deltas: Sedimentology and Tectonic Settings. Blackie,
London, pp. 2–13.
Nemec, W., Postma, G., 1993. Quaternary alluvial fans in southwestern Crete:
sedimentation processes and geomorphic evolution. In: Marzo, M., Puigdefabregas,
C. (Eds.), Alluvial Sedimentation. Special Publication of International Association of
Sedimentology, pp. 235–276.
Nilsen, T.H., 1982. Alluvial fan deposits. In: Scholle, P.A., Spearing, D. (Eds.), Sandstone
Depositional Environments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Mem-
oirs, vol. 31, pp. 49–87.
Okay, A.İ., Satır, M., 2000. Coeval plutonism and metamorphism in a latest Oligocene
metamorphic core complex in northwest Turkey. Geological Magazine 137,
495–516.
Olsen, P.E., 1997. Stratigraphic record of the early Mesozoic breakup of Pangea in the
Laurasia–Gondwana rift system. Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science 25,
337–401.
Özkaymak, C., Sözbilir, H., 2008. Stratigraphic and structural evidence for fault
reactivation: the active Manisa fault zone, western Anatolia. Turkish Journal of
Earth Sciences 17, 615–635.
Özsayın, E., Dirik, K., 2007. Quaternary activity of the Cihanbeyli and Yeniceoba fault
zones: İnönü–Eskişehir fault system, Central Anatolia. Turkish Journal of Earth
Sciences 16, 471–492.
Pamukçu, O., Yurdakul, A., 2008. Isostatic compensation in Western Anatolia with estimate
of the effective elastic thickness. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 17, 545–557.
Passciher, C.W., Trouw, R.A.J., 1996. Microtectonics. Springer Verlag.
Polat, O., Gök, E., Doğruer, Y., 2008. Earthquake hazard of the Aegean extension region
(W. Turkey). Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 17, 593–614.
Poulimenos, G., Albers, G., Doutsos, T., 1989. Neotectonic evolution of the central section
of the Corinth graben. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaf-
ten, Band 140, 173–182.
Purvis, M., Robertson, A.H.F., 2004. A pulsed extension model for the Neogene–Recent
E–W-trending Alaşehir Graben and the NE–SW-trending Selendi and Gördes
basins, western Turkey. Tectonophysics 391, 171–201.
Purvis, M., Robertson, A.H.F., 2005a. Sedimentation of the Neogene–Recent Alaşehir
(Gediz) continental graben system used to test alternative tectonic models for
western (Aegean) Turkey. Sedimentary Geology 173, 373–408.
Purvis, M., Robertson, A.H.F., 2005b. Miocene sedimentary evolution of the NE–SW-
trending Selendi and Gördes basins, W Turkey: implications for extensional
processes. Sedimentary Geology 174, 31–62.
Purvis, M., Robertson, A.H.F., Pringle, M., 2005. Ar40–Ar39 dating of biotite and sanidine
in tuffaceous sediments and related intrusive rocks: implications for the Early
Miocene evolution of the Gördes and Selendi basins, W Turkey. Geodinamica Acta
18, 239–253.
Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Çakmak, R., Özener, H.,
Kadirov, F., Guliev, I., Stepanyan, R., Nadariya, M., Hahubia, G., Mahmoud, S., Sakr, K.,
Ar-Rajehi, A., Paradissis, D., Al-Aydrus, A., Prilepin, M., Guseva, T., Evren, E.,
Dmitrotsa, A., Filikov, S.V., Gomez, F., Al-Ghazzi, R., Karam, G., 2006. GPS constraints
on continental deformation in the Africa–Arabia–Eurasia continental collision zone
and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. Journal of Geophysical
Research 111 (B5), B054011. doi:10.1029/2005JB004051.
Ring, U., Collins, A.S., 2005. U–Pb SIMS dating of synkinematic granites: timing of core-
complex formation in the northern Anatolide belt of western Turkey. Journal of the
Geological Society, London 162, 289–298.
Ring, U., Johnson, C., Hetzel, R., Gessner, K., 2003. Tectonic denudation of a Late
Cretaceous–Tertiary collisional belt: regionally symmetric cooling patterns and
their relation to extensional faults in the Anatolide belt of western Turkey.
Geological Magazine 140, 421–441.
Rojay, B., Toprak, V., Demirci, C., Süzen, L., 2005. Plio–Quaternary evolution of the Küçük
Menderes Graben (Southwestern Anatolia, Turkey). Geodinamica Acta 18, 317–331.
Saraç, G., 2003. Türkiye Omurgalı Fosil Yatakları (Vertebrate fossil localities of Turkey).
Mineral Research and Exploration Directorate of Turkey (MTA), Scientific Report
No: 10609, pp. 208, Ankara, Turkey.
Sarıca, N., 2000. The Plio–Pleistocene age of Büyük Menderes and Gediz grabens and
their tectonic significance on N–S extensional tectonics in West Anatolia:
mammalian evidence from the continental deposits. Geological Journal 35, 1–24.
Schlische, R.W., 1993. Anatomy and evolution of the Triassic–Jurassic continental rift
system, eastern North America. Tectonics 12, 1026–1042.
Şen, Ş., Seyitoğlu, G., 2002. Magnetostratigraphy and vertical rotational tectonics in the
Early–Middle Miocene deposits of Alaşehir and Büyük Menderes grabens, western
Turkey. GSA Annual Meeting Abstracts with Programs, Denver, USA.
Şengör, A.M.C., 1987. Cross-faults and differential stretching of hanging walls in regions
of low-angle normal faulting: examples from eastern Turkey. In: Coward, M.P.,
Dewey, J.F., Hancock, P.L. (Eds.), Continental Extensional Tectonics. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, vol. 28, pp. 575–589.
Şengör, N., Görür, A.M.C., Şaroğlu, F., 1985. Strike–slip deformation, basin formation and
sedimentation: strike–slip faulting and related basin formation in zones of tectonic
escape: Turkey as a case study. In: Biddle, K., Christie-Blick, N. (Eds.), Strike-Slip
Deformation, Basin Formation and Sedimentation. Society of Economic Palaeontol-
ogists and Mineralogists, Special Publication, vol. 37, pp. 227–264.
Seyitoğlu, G., Scott, B.C., 1991. Late Cenozoic crustal extension and basin formation in
west Turkey. Geology Magazine 28, 155–166.
Seyitoğlu, G., Scott, B.C., 1992. The age of the Büyük Menderes Graben (west Turkey)
and its tectonic implications. Geological Magazine 129, 239–242.
Seyitoğlu, G., Çemen, İ., Tekeli, O., 2000. Extensional folding in the Alaşehir Gediz
graben, western Turkey. Journal of the Geological Society, London 157, 1097–1100.
Seyitoğlu, G., Tekeli, O., Çemen, İ., Şen, Ş., Işık, V., 2002. The role of flexural rotation/
rolling hinge model in the tectonic evolution of the Alaşehir Graben, western
Turkey. Geology Magazine 139, 15–26.
Seyitoğlu, G., Işık, V., Çemen, İ., 2004. Complete Tertiary exhumation history of the
Menderes Massif, western Turkey: an alternative working hypothesis. Terra Nova
16, 358–363.
Shaw, J.H., Hook, S.C., Sitohang, E.P., 1997. Extensional fault-bend folding and synrift
deposition: an example from the Central Sumatra basin, Indonesia. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 81, 367–379.
Sözbilir, H., 2001. Geometry of macroscopic structures with their relations to the
extensional tectonics: field evidence from the Gediz detachment, western Turkey.
Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 10, 51–67.
Sözbilir, H., 2002. Geometry and origin of folding in the Neogene sediments of the Gediz
Graben, western Anatolia, Turkey. Geodinamica Acta 15, 277–288.
Sözbilir, H., Emre, T., 1990. Neogene stratigraphy and structure of the northern rim of
the Büyük Menderes Graben. Proceedings of International Earth Sciences Congress
on Aegean Regions 1–6, October 1990, İzmir, pp. 314–322.
Sözbilir, H., Emre, T., 1996. Menderes Masifi'nin Neotektonik evriminde oluşan
supradetachment havzalar ve rift havzaları. 49. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı, Menderes
Masifi Paneli, Bildiri Özleri 30, Ankara.
Talbot, M.R., Allen, P.A., 1996. Lakes. In: Reading, H.G. (Ed.), Sedimentary Environments:
Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 83–125.
Tan, O.M., Tapırdamaz, C., Yörük, A., 2008. The earthquake catalogues for Turkey.
Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 17, 405–418.
Tarcan, G., Gemici, U., Aksoy, N., 2005. Hydrogeological and geochemical assessments of
the Gediz Graben geothermal areas, western Anatolia, Turkey. Environmental
Geology 47, 523–534.
Temiz, H., Gürsoy, H., Tatar, O., 1998. Kinematics of late Pliocene–Quaternary normal
faulting in the southeastern end of the Gediz Graben, Western Anatolia, Turkey.
International Geology Review 40, 638–646.
ten Veen, J.H., Boulton, S.J., Alçiçek, M.C., in press. From palaeotectonics to neotectonics in
the Neotethys realm: The importance of kinematic decoupling and inherited structural
grain in SW Anatolia (Turkey). Tectonophysics, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.09.030.
Thomson, S.N., Ring, U., 2006. Thermochronologic evaluation of postcollision
extension in the Anatolide orogen, western Turkey. Tectonics 25, TC3005.
doi:10.1029/2005TC001833.
Thomson, S.N., Stöckhert, B., Brix, M.R., 1998. Thermochronology of the high-pressure
metamorphic rocks of Crete, Greece: implications for the speed of tectonic
processes. Geology 26, 259–262.
Tokcaer, M., Agostini, S., Savaşçın, M.Y., 2005. Geotectonic setting and origin of the
youngest Kula volcanics (Western Anatolia), with a new emplacement model.
Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 14, 143–166.
Uzel, B., Sözbilir, H., 2008. A first record of strike-slip basin in western Anatolia and its
tectonic implication: the Cumaovası basin as an example. Turkish Journal of Earth
Sciences 17, 559–591.
Valero-Garcés, B.L., Gierlowski-Kordesch, E., 1994. Lacustrine carbonate deposition in
Middle Pennsylvanian cyclothems — the Upper Freeport Formation, Appalachian
Basin, USA. Journal of Paleolimnology 11, 109–132.
Wilkin, R.T., Barnes, H.L., 1997. Pyrite formation in an anoxic estuarine basin. American
Journal of Science 297, 620–650.
Xiao, H., Suppe, J., 1988. Origin of rollover: Geological Society of America Abstracts with
Programs 20. A109.
Xiao, H., Suppe, J., 1989. Role of compaction in the listrict shape of growth normal faults.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 73, 777–786.
Yazman, M.K., İztan, H., 1990. Alaşehir'in (Manisa) Jeolojisi ve Petrol Olanakları. TPAO
Exploration Group, unpublished technical report, 18 p.
Yazman, M.K., Güven, A., Ermiş, Y., Yılmaz, M., Özdemir, İ., Akçay, Y., Gönülalan, U.,
Tekeli, Ö., Aydemir, V., Sayılı, A., Batı, Z., İztan, H., Korucu, Ö., 1998. Alaşehir
Grabeni'nin ve Alaşehir-1 Prospektinin Değerlendirme Raporu. TPAO Exploration
Group, unpublished technical report, 142 p.
 N.B. Çiftçi, E. Bozkurt / Sedimentary Geology 216 (2009) 49–79
Yılmaz, H., 2007. Stream sediment geochemical exploration for gold in the Kazdağ dome
in the Biga Peninsula, western Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 16, 33–55.
Yılmaz, Y., Karacık, Z., 2001. Geology of the northern side of Gulf of Edremit and its
tectonic significance for the development of Aegean grabens. Geodinamica Acta 14,
31–43.
Yılmaz, Y., Genç, S.C., Gürer, Ö.F., Bozcu, M., Yılmaz, K., Karacık, Z., Altunkaynak, Ş., Elmas, A.,
2000. When did western Anatolian grabens begin to develop. In: Bozkurt, E., Winchester,
J.A., Piper, J.D.A. (Eds.), Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey and the Surrounding Area.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, vol. 173, p. 353—384.
79
Yılmaz, H., Alpaslan, M., Temel, A., 2007. Two-stage felsic volcanism in the western part
of the southeastern Anatolian orogen: petrologic and geodynamic implications.
International Geology Review 49, 120—141.
Yücel-Öztürk, Y., Helvacı, C., Satır, M., 2005. Genetic relations between skarn
mineralization and petrogenesis of the Evciler Granitoid, Kazdağ, Çanakkale,
Turkey and comparison with world skarn granitoids. Turkish Journal of Earth
Sciences 14, 225—280.
Yusufoğlu, H., 1996. Northern Margin of the Gediz Graben: age and evolution, west
Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 5, 11—23.