Articles | Volume 12, issue 6
Methods for assessment of models
28 Jun 2019
Methods for assessment of models |  | 28 Jun 2019

Quantitative stratigraphic analysis in a source-to-sink numerical framework

Xuesong Ding, Tristan Salles, Nicolas Flament, and Patrice Rey

Related authors

The flexural isostatic response of climatically driven sea-level changes on continental-scale deltas
Sara Polanco, Mike Blum, Tristan Salles, Bruce C. Frederick, Rebecca Farrington, Xuesong Ding, Ben Mather, Claire Mallard, and Louis Moresi
EGUsphere,,, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
The Canadian Atmospheric Model version 5 (CanAM5.0.3)
Jason Neil Steven Cole, Knut von Salzen, Jiangnan Li, John Scinocca, David Plummer, Vivek Arora, Norman McFarlane, Michael Lazare, Murray MacKay, and Diana Verseghy
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5427–5448,,, 2023
Short summary
The Teddy tool v1.1: temporal disaggregation of daily climate model data for climate impact analysis
Florian Zabel and Benjamin Poschlod
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5383–5399,,, 2023
Short summary
Assimilation of the AMSU-A radiances using the CESM (v2.1.0) and the DART (v9.11.13)–RTTOV (v12.3)
Young-Chan Noh, Yonghan Choi, Hyo-Jong Song, Kevin Raeder, Joo-Hong Kim, and Youngchae Kwon
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5365–5382,,, 2023
Short summary
Modernizing the open-source community Noah with multi-parameterization options (Noah-MP) land surface model (version 5.0) with enhanced modularity, interoperability, and applicability
Cenlin He, Prasanth Valayamkunnath, Michael Barlage, Fei Chen, David Gochis, Ryan Cabell, Tim Schneider, Roy Rasmussen, Guo-Yue Niu, Zong-Liang Yang, Dev Niyogi, and Michael Ek
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5131–5151,,, 2023
Short summary
Simulated stable water isotopes during the mid-Holocene and pre-industrial periods using AWI-ESM-2.1-wiso
Xiaoxu Shi, Alexandre Cauquoin, Gerrit Lohmann, Lukas Jonkers, Qiang Wang, Hu Yang, Yuchen Sun, and Martin Werner
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5153–5178,,, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Abreu, V., Pederson, K., Neal, J., and Bohacs, K.: A simplified guide for sequence stratigraphy: nomenclature, definitions and method, in: William Smith Meeting, 22–23 September 2014, The Geological Society, Burlington House, London, Paper number: 4, 2014. a
Ainsworth, B. R., McArthur, J. B., Lang, S. C., and Vonk, A. J.: Quantitative sequence stratigraphy, AAPG Bull., 102, 1913–1939, 2018. a
Bond, G. C., Kominz, M. A., Steckler, M. S., and Grotzinger, J. P.: Role of thermal subsidence, flexure, and eustasy in the evolution of early Paleozoic passive-margin carbonate platforms, in: Controls on Carbonate Platform and Basin Development, SEPM, Special Publication, 44, 39–61, 1989. a
Braun, J.: The many surface expressions of mantle dynamics, Nat. Geosci., 3, 825–833, 2010. a
Burgess, P. M.: RESEARCH FOCUS: The future of the sequence stratigraphy paradigm: Dealing with a variable third dimension, Geology, 44, 335–336, 2016. a, b
Short summary
This work introduced a quantitative stratigraphic framework within a source-to-sink numerical code, pyBadlands, and evaluated two stratigraphic interpretation techniques. This quantitative framework allowed us to quickly construct the strata formations and automatically produce strata interpretations. We further showed that the accommodation succession method, compared with the trajectory analysis method, provided more reliable interpretations as it is independent of time-dependent processes.