the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
01 Feb 2021
01 Feb 2021
A Global Database of Marine Isotope Stage 5a and 5c Marine Terraces and Paleoshoreline Indicators
- College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 97331
- College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 97331
Abstract. In this review we compile and detail the elevation, indicative meaning, and chronology of Marine Isotope Stage 5a and 5c sea level indicators for 39 sites within three geographic regions: the Pacific coast of North America, the Atlantic coast of North America and the Caribbean, and the remaining globe. These relative sea level indicators, comprised of geomorphic indicators such as marine and coral reef terraces, eolianites, and sedimentary marine and terrestrial limiting facies, facilitate future investigation into Marine Isotope Stage 5a and 5c interstadial paleo-sea level reconstruction, glacial isostatic adjustment, and Quaternary tectonic deformation. The open access database, presented in the format of the World Atlas of Last Interglacial Shorelines (WALIS) database, can be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4426206 (Thompson and Creveling, 2021).
Schmitty B. Thompson and Jessica R. Creveling
Status: open (until 29 Mar 2021)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2021-14', Colin V. Murray-Wallace, 11 Feb 2021
reply
This is a very valuable contribution in presenting in one article, and in a global context, information about the spatial distribution and elevation of sedimentary successions correlating with the Late Pleistocene warm interstadials MIS 5c and 5a. In this synthesis, it is noted that one of the difficulties in reviewing the literature, is the veracity of some of the palaeosea-level indicators.
The manuscript would be enhanced by perhaps adopting a more critical analysis of some of the data and field relationships of the landforms and sediments described. The manuscript would also be improved by a stronger and perhaps more critical synthesis section at the end of the work, with more commentary on the role of GIA in explaining the inferred relative sea level observations, particularly for the US Atlantic Coastal Plain and some sectors of the Caribbean. While it is important to present the data and honour the data of our predecessors, it would be nice to see what the authors make of all the information (i.e. to put their 'stamp' on things in a synthesis/discussion section).
It would also be nice to have some brief commentary on why many of the sites are so important - many of the names resonate in the history of Quaternary Science and the understaing of Quaternary sea-level changes, and for that matter neotectonics.
Some references that have been overlooked could be included, such as;
Schellmann & Radtke (2004) Earth-Science Reviews, 64, 157-187 (for Barbados)
Blakemore et al. (2015) Marine Geology, 335, 377-383 (for Robe Range)
Schwebel, D. A. (1984) Quaternary stratigraphy and sea-level variation in the southeast of South Australia. In, B. G. Thom (Ed), Coastal Geomorphology in Australia (pp. 291-311), Academic Press, Sydney. (Outlines the stratigraphical nomenclature and numerical system for the ages of the interstadial barrier successions for Robe Range).
In a similar manner, and perhaps appallingly self-serving, the following reference may be of value about Robe Range in the context of the Coorong Coastal Plain;
Murray-Wallace, C. V. (2018) Quaternary history of the Coorong Coastal Plain, Southern Australia: An archive of environmental and global sea-level changes, Springer, Cham, 229 pp.
Some minor editorial comments:
Please avoid the term 'absolute' when applied in a geochronological context - nothing is absolute, apart from death and taxes. I would suggest the term 'numeric'. Although 'aged' the following reference is of value in this regard;
Colman et al. (1987) Suggested terminology for Quaternary dating methods. Quaternary Research, 28, 314-319.
I would suggest in the title and all subsequent instances using the expression Sub-stage 5a abnd 5c
Line 8 document instead of detail
Line 17 Eartth's
Line 20 and all subsequent instances 'highstand' or 'highstands' (as recognised by Sequence Stratigraphy)
Figure 4 caption, line 2; 'geochronological'
'Ages' instead of 'dates', the latter being unique calendar events or 'hot nights out'
I wondered about the terminology of 'wave-cut platforms' as there has been much controversy on the use of this term in view of the processes that shape platforms - perhaps use the non-genetic term 'shore platform'
Line 142 with the Whiskey (on that matter - correct spelling of Whisky or Whiskey? and in subsequent instances)
Line 166 with the MIS 5c Pioneer
Line 271 perhaps changed 'posited' to 'argued' or 'suggested'
It might be worth having some commentary on the reliability of the U-series ages in the context of the reported ages and delta234U values, where this is possible.
Line 315 delete second instance of 'overall' - on the same line, I am not sure what 'have very good chronologies' means? In what sense? Please clarify.
Line 429 species in italics
In terms of the Huon Peninsula, I personally feel that it is critical to include the 'Reconciliation' paper by Chappell et al. (1996) Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 141, 227-236.
Line 445 delete second instance of reference
Line 480 luminescene has more commonly been used in these regions as the method determines the timing (age) of the depositional event, and also because of the paucity of corals in these successions, that would otherwise have been appropriate for U-series dating.
Line 505 word choice in terms of 'densely' - is this really true?
I don't know if it is possible, however, some photographs of some classic field sites would aid the visual appeal of the paper.
Colin Murray-Wallace
11th February 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2021-14', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Feb 2021
reply
General comments:
In this review Thomspon and Creveling compiled the marine terraces and paleoshoreline sea-level indicators that formed during the interstadials MIS 5a and 5c. The authors divide the geographical distribution of the indicators in 3 main regions: Pacific coast of North America, the Atlantic coast of North America and the Caribbean, and the remaining globe. This global compilation includes the elevation, indicative meaning, and chronology of the indicators. Due to its global context, this component of the WALIS database will prove to be very useful by facilitating global sea level reconstructions and contributing to refining the corrections needed for glacial isostatic adjustments and regional tectonic deformation.
I think the manuscript is overall well written and concise. The majority of the manuscript deals with reporting the measured elevations and chronologies of the MIS 5 and 5c indicators, however, in my opinion, this work would benefit from a discussion before Future research directions on the GIA effects and tectonic deformation. I suggest the authors to address how these indicators are useful to facilitate the future investigations of GIA models, particularly given the good coverage in the near field of the North American Ice Sheets, as well as their usefulness for better constraints of the Quaternary tectonic deformation.
Although there is a brief summary section at the end of each of the 3 different regions, it seems that a section of more general conclusions of this compilation in the end of the manuscript is missing.
Specific comments:
I suggest using “substages” in the title and throughout the text.
Please check the references throughout the manuscript and consistently use “et al” with non-italic, as per journal guidelines.
The authors use “uranium-thorium", “uranium-series”, “uranium series” dating - Please choose one of these and use it consistently throughout the text.
I suggest including a brief discussion about the age quality and indicator quality presented in Tables 1 and 2 and refer the reader to the evaluation guide by which indicators are rated on a 0 (rejected) to 5 (excellent) scale.
Details:
Line 7: I suggest delete “and detail”.
Line 17: Earth’s
Line 39: delete “with MIS 5a and 5c paleo-sea level indicators” - it’s already mentioned at the beginning of the sentence
Line 39: “includes sites”. Isn’t 39 the number of total sites, instead of 36?
Line 42: uncertainty - do authors refer to Elevation measurements’ uncertainty here? Not clear.
Line 51: reflects
Line 52: introduce here the acronym GIA
Line 60: delete GIA
Line 61: delete GMSL - has already been mentioned in line 53
Line 69: Muhs et al 1992b? But Muhs 1992a hasn’t been cited yet
Line 73: eolianites
Line 89: introduce the acronym AAR
Line 96: radiocarbon dating
Line 105: “present review”?
Line 135: delete “amino acid racemization” and keep only AAR
Line 150: see “above" not below
Line 155: this is the same sentence as in lines 146-147
Line 157: mention the age?
Line 177: add “respectively”
Line 178: I suggest rephrasing this sentence: “Merritts and Bull (1989) assigned the 10 m apsl and 23 m apsl terraces to MIS 5a and 5c” has been mentioned already 2 lines above
Line 221: bones?
Line 222: “.” missing after (figure 4). “Corals” instead of “coral”.
Line 225: I suggest avoiding to use the word “terrace” so many times (i.e., 3 times in one sentence).
Line 214: delete “.” after fossiliferous
Line 245: I suggest using “open-system behavior”
Line 251: delete comma
Line 252: delete first comma
Line 259: delete comma
Line 287: delete apsl
Line 309: America
Line 312: the cited reference is missing the year
Line 315: delete the second “overall”
Line 321: “.” missing at the end of the sentence
Line 323: corals
Line 325: is it age assignment of MIS 5a instead of MIS 5 here?
Line 348: I suggest deleting “aged”
Line 351: “represents”. I am not clear what the authors mean by “ specific Fig. 5”?
Line 364: “radiocarbon ages and uranium-series dates” - to avoid confusion, I recommend to clarify the difference between “a date” and “an age” and use it correspondingly throughout the manuscript.
Line 368: eolianites
Line 377: fits
Line 390: corals
Line 391: use comma before “respectively”
Line 410: delete “terrace” before lowest. “is mapped”
Line 419: delete “OSL”
Line 428-429: use italic for coral species
Line 439: corals
Figure 1: I would suggest a clear separation between panel (a-c) from (d-f) (i.e., move (d-f) more to the right, otherwise I find reading the figure a bit confusing).
Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 captions: use RSL and delete “relative sea level”
Figure 4 and 5: I recommend placing the legend in a better position so that it doesn’t overlap with the data (one suggestion would be to have dates and substage assignment on two different columns).
Schmitty B. Thompson and Jessica R. Creveling
Data sets
WALIS Spreadsheet Thompson Creveling Thompson, Schmitty and Creveling, Jessica https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4426206
Schmitty B. Thompson and Jessica R. Creveling
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 251 | 55 | 9 | 315 | 6 | 4 |
- HTML: 251
- PDF: 55
- XML: 9
- Total: 315
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1