CARBONATE MUD-MOUNDS
101
mud-mounds, evokes a primary composition of loose lime
mud. However, most studies during the last two decades
stressed the necessary role of soft-bodied and/or poorly
fossilizable organisms in mound accretion, in particular that
of the microbes and the sponges, and showed that a significant
portion ofthe finely crystalline material may correspond to an
early lithification of these organisms or parts of them. An
important character of mud mounds is the multigeneration
nature of the finely crystalline material (polymuds of Lees and
Miller, 1985): the first generation corresponds to the primary,
early cemented, often pelleted mudstone, whereas the subse-
quent generations correspond to geopetal muds originating
from collapse of uncemented material and/or internal sedi-
mentation, all types of generation forming a highly structured
mosaic.
On the one hand, several workers put forward an all-
microbial origin of mud-mounds following Monty (1976, and
in Monty etal., 1995), In particular, the pelleted nature ofthe
finely crystalline carbonate is viewed as the product of in situ
calcifying microbes and therefore considered as diagnostic for
a microbial origin of the mound (several papers in Monty
et al., 1995), This view is emphasized by the mud-mound
spectrum proposed by Bosence and Bridges (in Monty etal.,
1995) who recognized only two types of mud-mounds: the
microbial mud-mounds, and the biodetrital mud-mounds,
leaving no room for other builders than the microbial
community.
On the other hand, several studies have shown that most
Paleozoic mud-mounds are not made up of a single
component, but rather of a mosaic of facies (e,g,, James and
Bourque, 1992), For one, the red stromatactis facies commonly
found in the basal part in Paleozoic mud-mounds has been
shown to be very rich in sponge bodies and/or in sponge
spicules everywhere it has been studied (references in Bourque
and Boulvain, 1993), The facies has been interpreted to have
originated from the calcification of a primary sponge network
through microbial decay during early diagenesis, destroying
the original shape ofthe sponges and much ofthe spicules, and
ending with a finely crystalline limestone having a pelleted
texture (Bourque and Boulvain, 1993),
There is no doubt that microbial communities may have
acted as primary builders in mud-mound accretion, for
instance in trapping and binding allochthonous mud, produ-
cing in situ loose lime mud or mediating pelleted micrite-
microspar precipitation via their vital activity (e,g,, by
photosynthesis). They may also have acted as the main agent
of transformation of a primary organic-rich substrate into
micrite-microspar via organic matrices. For instance, decaying
DETRITAL
MUD-MOUNDS
Calcimicrobes
Small delicate
skeletons
Stromatolites Thrombolites Sponges Shells
Figure C7 Primary facies spectrum of mud-mounds,, from Bourque
(2001) (modified from James and Bourque, 1992),
former microbial community (Defarge etal., 1996) or decaying
sponges (Reitner etal., 1995) may be used as substrate for
calcite nucieation. In both cases, the end product is a pelleted
finely crystalline limestone (micrite-microspar), a situation that
renders difficult the recognition of the primary community.
Figure C7 presents a genetic classification of mud-mounds
that account for the primary facies spectrum found in mud-
mounds, Microbial and skeletal mud-mounds are those which
were primarily accreted by microbial communities or skeletal
organisms (sponges, bryozoans, delicate corals, etc), respec-
tively, Detrital mud-mounds are those which resulted from the
piling up of biodetrital material and/or loose lime mud.
The above discussed types of mud-mounds were built
mainly by autotrophic and/or heterotrophic communities.
These last years, ancient mud-mounds related to chemosynth-
esis have been described, and we should expect that more will
be recognized in the future. In this case, deciphering which
group of organisms is involved in chemosynthesis is not readily
achieved.
Gaps in current knowledge
Beyond the controversies on the origin of mud-mounds, two
main gaps in the current knowledge of mud-mounds are
particularly teasing. Firstly, the origin of the enormous
amount of marine cement and the driving mechanism for
marine fluid circulation remain poorly understood. For
instance, the stromatactis facies into which early marine
cement may constitute more than half of the rock volume
testifies to rapid, massive cementation. An enormous volume
of water supersaturated with respect to CaC03 is needed. The
mechanisms that drive the necessary fluids to the sites of early
cementation in relatively deep-water mounds are presently
poorly circumscribed.
Secondly, mud-mound workers can rely on a very limited
number of modern analogs for mud-mounds. One of the
strengths that lead to satisfactorily understand the ancient reef
system through geological time is the actualistic approach
favored by the accessibility of the modern reef system. This is
far from being the case for the mud-mound system. The only
modern objects that may represent analogs to mud-mounds
are the deep-water mud-rich ahermatypic coral mounds. These
can be classified as skeletal and/or detrital mud-mounds.
Obviously, they represent only a very small portion of the
mud-mound spectrum in the geological record, and therefore
carbonate mud-mounds are geological bodies important for
our understanding of the past carbonate system and life,
Pierre-Andre Bourque
Bibliography
Bourque, P,-A,, 2001, Mud-mounds: do they still constitute an
enigma? Geologic Miditenaneenne, 28: 27-32,
Bourque, P,-A,, and Boulvain, F,, 1993, A model for the origin and
petrogenesis of the red stromatactis limestone of Paleozoic
carbonate mounds. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 63: 607-619,
Defarge, C, Triehet, J,, Jaunet, A,-M,, Robert, M,, Tribble, J,, and
Sansone, F,J,, 1996, Texture of microbial sediments revealed by
eryo-scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Sedimenlary
Researeh, 66: 935-947,
James, N,P,, and Bourque, P,-A,, 1992, Reefs and Mounds, In Walker,
R,G,, and James, N,P, (eds,),
Faeies
Models—Response
to
Sea-Level
Change. Geological Association of Canada, pp, 323-347,