MIS 5e sea-level history along the Pacific coast of North America

Muhs, Daniel R.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1271-2022

Articles | Volume 14, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1271-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

WALIS – the World Atlas of Last Interglacial...

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1271-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 3

Review article

|

22 Mar 2022

Review article |

| 22 Mar 2022

MIS 5e sea-level history along the Pacific coast of North America

Daniel R. Muhs

Download

Final revised paper (published on 22 Mar 2022)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 22 Oct 2021)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on essd-2021-345', Jessica Creveling, 01 Nov 2021
In the ESSD submission “MIS 5e sea-level history along the Pacific Coast of North America”, author Daniel Muhs presents a thoroughly researched and illustrated compendium of Last Interglacial sea level markers for the North and Central America Pacific coast from southern Canada to central America. This is a valuable contribution across multiple themes, including:

A systematic, north-to-south guide to MIS 5e (or purported 5e) sedimentary deposits and marine terraces (erosional and constructional) from British Columbia, Canada to the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica with a rich discussion of the primary descriptions of these locales.

A description of relevant geochronological methods used to date these indicators, with a broad bibliography for each method.

A more concise, but equally informative summary of older and younger terraces situated above and below purported/dated MIS 5e indicators, with implications for local uplift histories.

A nuanced discussion of how the MIS 5 (sensu lato) paleozoogeography informs regional climate constructions and bears on questions of a warming world.

And a thoughtful summary of remaining controversies and how these can direct future inquiry across multiple methods, from GIA to geochronology to field geomorphology.

I have read the submission twice in full and learned from both readings. Muhs’ writing and illustrations are exceptionally clear. I found nothing to quibble with and I believe that any reader, regardless of expertise or experience, will gain from this remarkable synthesis. I advocate for the publication of this submission without any change from its current format.

Best regards,

Jessica Creveling
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Daniel R Muhs, 26 Jan 2022
  
  Please see attached PDF with reviewer's comment and author's replies.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on essd-2021-345', John Wehmiller, 11 Nov 2021

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2021-345/essd-2021-345-RC2-supplement.zip

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-RC2
- CC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Alessio Rovere, 25 Nov 2021
  
  As topical editor of this Special Issue and the leading scientist behind the WALIS database idea, I would like to thank John Wehmiller for the specific comments on the database, mostly centered on the Amino Acid Racemization data table.
  For the readers, I wish to clarify that the main aim of having the data in a standardized format is not to "supersede" original publications. Instead, it is to make the data contained therein more usable and available in a ready-to-analyze form. However, as John Wehmiller points out in his comment, nothing can indeed substitute the expertise of the person/team who originally collected the data, which should always be credited and to whom questions may be directed in case of doubts.
  However, we should recognize that good data most often outlive our careers. Also, it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot rely on publishers (that are, most often, companies that may eventually go out of business) to store data in the long term. Therefore, we need to prepare the best possible standardized templates and keep them in long-term archives. This is the driving concept of the entire WALIS special issue (and the associated database). Of note is that both data and papers are archived for long-term preservation. Data is stored in Zenodo, copies of papers are sent to the German National Library and other repositories, all independent from the publisher.
  I would also like to point out that WALIS is not a "fixed" atlas, but it can be updated and improved through suggestions from the scientific community. The Special Issue serves to collect data for Version 1.0, to which hopefully many more will follow. The comments received from John Wehmiller on the AAR spreadsheet are exactly what WALIS needs to grow and improve through time. He knows better than anyone else those data, as he was the one who did the original analyses and wrote the original manuscripts from where the data was reported.
  I encourage anyone who has their work cited in WALIS to look over the data they produced and get in touch with the editorial team if they notice discrepancies or suggest corrections. A track-changes system is in place in WALIS so that creating a new record without losing the original entry is possible, and credit to the "reviewer" will be given. John Wehmiller has set an excellent example of how to do that.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-CC2
  - RC3: 'Reply on CC2', John Wehmiller, 29 Nov 2021
    
    Related to this discussion, it should be pointed out that the AAR community initiated an effort in 2010 to establish a program for archival data storage. The results of this effort can be found at the US NOAA NEIC Paleoclimatology site (link below). Datafiles on the site may not have some specific information that would be sought by WALIS users but the overall structure and content of the site should be of interest to the WALIS community. Ideally, links between the NOAA site or other databases could be established so that WALIS community is aware of these other sources of information. Several publications and datasets discussed in the Muhs WALIS paper are listed in the NOAA site, and others remain to be added.
    In the 50+-year history of the AAR method, as with many other methods, technological advances have affected the type and quality of data. In the early years, only one amino acid D/L value could be measured; newer methods allowed multiple D/L measurements with varying degrees of confidence. Data digitization and more rapid and more sensitive analytical procedures further enhanced the method. Comparing D/L values obtained in the past two decades to those from the 1960’s and 1970’s must be done with extreme care, as inter-lab (and even intra-lab) differences can be significant.
    For those studies that report D/L values for multiple amino acids, it is important to note that, in almost all cases, the investigator(s) emphasized results for certain amino acids. The reasons for relying on specific amino acid results are usually discussed in the primary literature. It is important that the WALIS database include this information if it is to be consistent with the original work.
    NOAA Paleoclimatology Data site
    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology
    Search for “Paleodata”, then enter “Racemization”
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-RC3
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Daniel R Muhs, 26 Jan 2022
  
  Please see attached PDF with reviewer's comments and author's replies.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-AC2
CC1:
'Comment on essd-2021-345', Barbara Mauz, 22 Nov 2021

I truly enjoyed reading this well-written paper. It exemplifies how to review a subject and how to link early ideas to today’s thinking. Notwithstanding, after around half of the text I was puzzled.
With the Walis project aims in mind, i.e. standardising model-independent approaches for determining sea-level index points: what exactly is the RSL indicator here? Is it a marine terrace, a coral terrace, a shoreline angle? Ok, the angle is a clear concept and easy to identify in the field (unless it is covered by slope deposits as depicted in Fig. 3 ) but how is the spatial relationship defined between the fossil dated, the terrace surface and the shoreline angle? In Fig. 3 a “simple” and a “complex” case of a marine terrace is depicted and the terrace deposit is composed of pebbles and (transported?) molluscs fossils. The complex case would be the one where an additional terrace forms above the lower one, hence the subsiding coast is the complex example. What about uplifting coasts and reef platforms? None of the U-series dated corals was in primary growth position suggesting that the sample was collected from the subtidal reef slope or interior platform. Fig. 6 illustrates the method approach using photos from the LACMIP locality – how does this approach relate to WALIS? How do pholads allow to estimate max shoreline angle elevation? I do not find the terms ‘bench’ and ‘pholads’ in Rovere et al.
Does this affect the data presented in the WALIS database? In record ID3832 (arbitrarily selected) the indicator is ‘marine terrace’ (sensu Rovere, I guess), the coral used for dating (Porites panamensis) was found in 3.1 m elevation (Table S1; no uncertainty), the shoreline angle is at 8.7±1.6 m (this is a 18% error; the elevation measurement technique is given as ‘not reported’), RWL is -0.03 m and IR is 1.06 m and, logically, WALIS calculates the sea level to have been at 8.73±1.68 m. According to the IUCN database Porites panamensis occurs on coral reef communities growing on rocky substrates, at depth ranging 0 - 36 m. Following Hallmann et al. who followed Hibbert et al. 2016, 2018, this database (together with OBIS) is regarded as being the standard for coral-based SLIPs in WALIS – am I wrong? Daniel Muhs indicates 0 - 10 m for all corals in the study area following Glynn and Ault (2000) who focused on coral life history and population dynamics since the closure of the central-American seaway. There is no explanation as to how one of the key parameter in WALIS, that is the RWL, was inferred or calculated and it looks as if the tidal range, albeit minor, was not taken into consideration at all.
No doubt, ocean currents, ENSO cycles, the virtual absence of extended rocky shelfs and the geological history of the north-central American coast, all together control the shape of marine terraces, reef assemblages, reef construction, growth and shape. I feel that ‘marine terrace’ does not describe the sea-level indicator(s) that occur on the north-central American coast.
Lastly, I feel the paper would benefit if Figs 3, 18, 19, 21, 28, 36a include a key and/or a scale and if standards for numbers are followed: value and corresponding uncertainty must have the same number of digits.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-CC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Daniel R Muhs, 26 Jan 2022
  
  Please see attached PDF with reviewer's comments and author's replies.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-AC3
RC4:
'Comment on essd-2021-345', Hayley C. Cawthra, 30 Nov 2021

It has been a great pleasure to review Daniel Muhs’ review paper ‘MIS 5e sea-level history along the Pacific Coast of North America’. This is a long and complex geographic area to cover, with a lengthy history of investigations of its Quaternary deposits, and the author has described the records in a carefully thought out and clear way, with excellent figures to supplement the text. I felt that the accompanying database of sea-level records for the WALIS compilation was well referred to and it cross references well.

In addition to the MIS 5e deposits and their relevance in a context of RSL, this review lays out the role of antecedent structure in the deposition and preservation of these features; biological and geological indicators of sea level and the ranges of accuracy associated with them; benefits and limitations of various dating methods; and a useful comparison to younger (Holocene) and pre-MIS 5e sea-level records. The final section ‘Future research directions’ provides useful tips for topics that could merit additional work, based both on a thorough literature review and observations based on personal field experience.

I have only three very minor suggestions and one point to consider:

To further expand on the limitations of using marine terraces as indicators of RSL, considering repeated reoccupation by sea-level stillstands

In Lines 35 and 40: the use of the word ‘complex’ had me thinking of an igneous intrusive complex, so perhaps just refer to ‘the last interglacial’?

Please re-run a check of abbreviations as I noted that some were expanded more than once in the main text (GIA, LIG, RSL).

I have no doubt that this paper will be well received by the community. Again, it was a pleasure to review.

Kind regards,

Hayley Cawthra

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-RC4
- AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Daniel R Muhs, 26 Jan 2022
  
  Please see attached PDF with reviewer's comments and author's replies.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-345-AC4

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Daniel R Muhs on behalf of the Authors (30 Jan 2022) Author's response

EF by Polina Shvedko (31 Jan 2022)

EF by Polina Shvedko (03 Feb 2022) Manuscript

EF by Polina Shvedko (03 Feb 2022) Author's tracked changes

ED: Publish as is (04 Feb 2022) by Colin V. Murray-Wallace

AR by Daniel R Muhs on behalf of the Authors (07 Feb 2022) Manuscript

Download

Article (42114 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

The last interglacial period, known as marine isotope substage (MIS) 5e, was the last time in recent geologic history when sea level was substantially higher than present. It is an important time period to understand because climate models forecast a higher global sea level in the not-too-distant future. Geologic records of this high-sea stand (marine terraces, reefs) along the Pacific coast of North America are reviewed here with the identification of knowledge gaps where more work is needed.