the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 26 Jul 2024
HOLSEA-NL: Holocene water level and sea-level indicator dataset for the Netherlands
Abstract. Deltas and coastal plains worldwide developed under the influence of relative sea level rise (RSLR) during the Holocene. In the Netherlands, Holocene RSLR results from both regional sea-level rise and regional subsidence patterns, mainly caused by glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA: Scandinavian forebulge collapse) and longer-term North Sea Basin tectono-sedimentary subsidence. Past coastal and inland water levels are preserved in geological indicators marking the gradual drowning of an area, for example basal peats. Such geological water-level indicators have been used in the Netherlands for varying types of research. However, uniform overviews of these data exist only for smaller local subsets and not for the entire Netherlands. In this paper we present a data set of 712 Holocene water-level indicators from the Dutch coastal plain that are relevant for studying RSLR and regional subsidence, compiled in HOLSEA workbook format. This format was expanded to allow for registering basal-peat type geological indicators, documenting Dutch-setting specific parameters and accompanying uncertainties, to assess indicative meaning, and to appropriately correct the raw vertical positions of the indicators. Overall, our new, internally consistent, expanded documentation provided for the water-level indicators encourages users to choose the information relevant for their research and report RSLR uncertainties transparently. From the indicators, 59 % was collected in 1950–2000, mainly in academic studies and survey mapping campaigns; 37 % was collected in 2000–2020 in academic studies and archaeological surveying projects, 4 % was newly collected (this study), the latter mainly in previously under sampled central and northern Netherlands regions. Prominent regional differences exist in the vertical position and abundance of the indicators. Older indicators in our data set are mostly located in the deeper seaward area of the Netherlands. These indicators correspond well with previous transgression reconstructions, that are partly based on the same data. The younger, landwards set of indicators in the Rhine-Meuse central and Flevoland regions corresponds with the transgression phase reaching further inland, from 8000 cal. BP onwards. Northern indicators of Middle Holocene age (8–5 ka cal. BP), in general lie 2–3 meters lower compared to those in the south. For younger data this difference is less, showing spatial and temporal variation in RSLR throughout the Netherlands.
- Preprint
(2890 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-271', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Aug 2024
This is an outstanding paper that compiles all the SLIPs from the Netherlands and compiles them into a unified RSL dataset by correcting for the effects of subsidence, compaction, tides, etc. in a few cm-order. This study is expected to be a model for the future reconstruction of RSL using basal peat. Such detailed RSL is basic information not only for understanding the strata formation, but also for predicting future sea level rise in the Netherlands. This paper is well-organized and easy to read. I have listed some detailed comments below, which might help you to improve the paper.
(1) Can you ignore the compaction of the Pleistocene? It is necessary to explain that compaction can be ignored when it is composed of sand and gravel.
(2) It is easier to understand if you add dotted lines of axis of paleo-valleys in Figure 1a.
(3) Are there no brackish peats?
(4) How were the errors in Table 1 calculated? A simple explanation is needed. Also, I am not sure what the difference is between bog and fen in facies, so it would be good to have a photo of the core. An explanation is needed as to how SLIP was estimated from undifferentiated peat.
(5) Lines 305 to 309. 620+50=670 basal peat data points, which doesn't match 640.
(6) It would be better to show the position of the cross section in Figure 3 in the index map.
(7) Line 398. How were marine carbon and delta R estimated? How many shells did you used for SLIP?
(8) Estimate of compaction is not clear. How was the amount of compaction calculated from the decompaction factor? More detail explanation is required.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-271-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-271', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Oct 2024
General Comments
The authors produce a database of Holocene sea level and water level indicators for the Netherlands that follows the standardization practices of the HOLSEA working group. Data standardization includes the collection of a wide variety of metadata related to each data point, all of which is funneled into a single spreadsheet for easy use. I commend the authors on their careful work, which lays the foundation for a generation of sea level studies at regional and global scale. The authors deserve particular applause for their care in noting the circumstances in which each type of correction is typically used – a step beyond the standard HOLSEA database paper and one which will benefit future sea level scientists. This study stands to receive many, many citations and represents a major advance in sea level studies for this area. I have a strongly favorable view of the manuscript.
In responding to some of the questions posed by the ESSD reviewer guidelines below, I make a few suggestions for minor ways to improve the manuscript. Were the authors to accept none of these suggestions, the manuscript would still be a valuable contribution and would be publishable as-is. Good job. Well done.
- Are the data and methods presented new?
The methods here follow standard protocols – a strength of this sort of study – and the authors present both existing and new data.
- Is there any potential of the data being useful in the future?
There is great potential for the data to be useful in the future.
- Are methods and materials described in sufficient detail?
The methods are generally described in sufficient detail to be reproduceable.
- Are any references/citations to other data sets or articles missing or inappropriate?
The article would be improved by citing all of the data sources in the main text. This would give the original papers more credit and reduce the hassle for readers who want to track individual papers down. The article would be further improved by providing a list of the papers that were excluded, including papers presenting “samples from intercalated peat layers from shallower positions than the basal peats” (L187), “Studies sampling peat at inland locations above +1 m MSL” (L193), and studies presenting samples from pingos (L195). The authors make the good point that this dataset should ideally be a living one with regular updates. Documenting papers that were examined but excluded will make easier the efforts of future workers who want to improve this database.
- Is the article itself appropriate to support the publication of a data set?
The article is appropriate to support the publication of the dataset.
- Is the data set accessible via the given identifier? Is the data set complete? Are error estimates and sources of errors given (and discussed in the article)? Are the accuracy, calibration, processing, etc. state of the art? Are common standards used for comparison? Is the data set significant – unique, useful, and complete?
Yes
- Are there any inconsistencies within these, implausible assertions or data, or noticeable problems which would suggest the data are erroneous (or worse). If possible, apply tests (e.g. statistics). Unusual formats or other circumstances which impede such tests in your discipline may raise suspicion. Is the data set itself of high quality? is the data set usable in its current format and size? Are the formal metadata appropriate? Is the length of the article appropriate?
The article is thorough and seems not to omit major details.
- Is the overall structure of the article well structured and clear? Is the language consistent and precise? Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used? Are figures and tables correct and of high quality? Is the data set publication, as submitted, of high quality?
The overall structure is clear and the language consistently precise. Abbreviations are defined and correctly used and publication is of high quality, as are the data themselves.
- By reading the article and downloading the data set, would you be able to understand and (re-)use the data set in the future?
Yes.
- Is there any potential of the data being useful? This is clearly the most important decision. There are at least three sub-criteria to evaluate:
- Uniqueness: it should not be possible to replicate the experiment or observation on a routine basis. Thus, any data set on a variable supposed or suspected to reflect changes in the Earth system deserves to be considered unique. This is also the case for cost-intensive data sets which will not be replicated due to financial reasons. A new or improved method should not be trivial or obvious.
- Usefulness: it should be plausible that the data, alone or in combination with other data sets, can be used in future interpretations, for the comparison to model output or to verify other experiments or observations. Other possible uses mentioned by the authors will be considered.
- Completeness: a data set or collection must not be split intentionally, for example, to increase the possible number of publications. It should contain all data that can be reviewed without unnecessary increase of workload and can be reused in another context by a reader.
The labor that went into compiling these data is significant and could not be easily reproduced. The authors describe possible future uses, of which there could be many. The data have not been split intentionally.
- The data must be presented readily and accessible for inspection and analysis to make the reviewer's task possible. Even if a data set submitted is the first ever published (on a parameter, in a region, etc.), its claimed accuracy, the instrumentation employed, and methods of processing should reflect the "state of the art" or "best practices". Considering all conditions and influences presented in the article, these claims and factors must be mutually consistent. The reviewer will then apply his or her expert knowledge and operational experience in the specific field to perform tests (e.g. statistical tests) and cast judgement on whether the claimed findings and its factors – individually and as a whole – are plausible and do not contain detectable faults.
The data are reflect state of the art and best practices. The authors do not present scientific findings beyond the data itself, thus not needing statistical tests. But from visual inspection of Figures 9 and 10, the data pass the ‘sniff’ test, in that they follow the glacial isostatic adjustment-driven pattern that one would expect from sea-level data in this area and accurately represent previous studies, of which there are many.
- Long articles are not expected. Regarding the style, the aim is to develop stereotypical wording so that unambiguous meaning can be expressed and understood without much effort. The article should express clearly what has been found, where, when, and how. The article text and references should contain all information necessary to evaluate all claims about the data set or collection, whether the claims are explicitly written down in the article, or implicit, through the data being published or their metadata. The authors should point to suitable software or services for simple visualization and analysis, keeping in mind that neither the reviewer nor the casual "reader" will install or pay for it.
By the metrics outlined above, the authors go beyond the ESSD standards for publication. Indeed, I would have expected to see a manuscript of this quality submitted to QSR or another similar publication. However, the article does clearly express the contents of the dataset and therefore is suitable for ESSD.
Further notes
+ The authors mention including new datapoints from the North Holland Flevoland fringe region but do not include a specific section describing those data. Suggestion to either include a section describing those data or to explicitly describe why that section does not exist.
+L520: the authors mention an optional correction related to long-term tectonic and sediment loading related subsidence and cite previous work on this background rate. Given the level of detail of this manuscript, it would be helpful to explicitly state what constraints are used to produce this longterm subsidence rate, which must be older than MIS-5e if it was also used for a Last Interglacial sea-level database.
+ On my first read through, a number of small typos popped out. These errors were small and do not detract from the manuscript’s quality. While I do not have time to read the full 35 page manuscript a second time in depth to catch those typos, I encourage the authors to proof their manuscript prior to acceptance.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-271-RC2 -
AC1: 'Author Response to Reviewers Comments on essd-2024-271', Kim de Wit, 10 Oct 2024
We thank the two reviewers for their kind words and their useful comments.
The comments raised by the reviewers are clearly stated and seem to require no major revisions. Most comments recommend additional clarification or explanations in the main text, with which we agree, and we foresee no further discussion on these topics. We will use the comments raised to improve our manuscript and clarify the specific sections that were commented on.
Here we respond to the comments per reviewer and briefly describe the proposed revisions:
RC1:
Comments 2 and 6 are helpful suggestions for additional visual guides in Fig. 1a, considering the palaeo-valleys and locations of the cross-sections from Fig. 3. We will use these in the new version.
Comment 5 refers to the total number of basal peats that do not add up. This is indeed an error that slipped into the text since the number of accepted Top basal peat samples should be ~20 instead of ~50.
Comments 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 refer to specific sections that require more clarification or additional explanations of certain topics. We thank the reviewer for the clear questions and suggestions. We agree that the manuscript will benefit from these proposed additions, and we will incorporate the changes in the text.
RC2:
Comments 1 and 2 refer to two sections that required additional content, one about the new data points included in the HOLSEA-NL data set and one about the constraints of the long-term tectonic and sediment loading-related subsidence rates. Supporting information on both topics will be included in the revised manuscript.
RC2 also recommends including the data sources from the HOLSEA-NL data set in the paper to give more credit to the original sources and improve findability. We fully agree with this suggestion and we will incorporate the sources in the citation list and add an overview of the number of samples per reference.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-271-AC1
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-271', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Aug 2024
This is an outstanding paper that compiles all the SLIPs from the Netherlands and compiles them into a unified RSL dataset by correcting for the effects of subsidence, compaction, tides, etc. in a few cm-order. This study is expected to be a model for the future reconstruction of RSL using basal peat. Such detailed RSL is basic information not only for understanding the strata formation, but also for predicting future sea level rise in the Netherlands. This paper is well-organized and easy to read. I have listed some detailed comments below, which might help you to improve the paper.
(1) Can you ignore the compaction of the Pleistocene? It is necessary to explain that compaction can be ignored when it is composed of sand and gravel.
(2) It is easier to understand if you add dotted lines of axis of paleo-valleys in Figure 1a.
(3) Are there no brackish peats?
(4) How were the errors in Table 1 calculated? A simple explanation is needed. Also, I am not sure what the difference is between bog and fen in facies, so it would be good to have a photo of the core. An explanation is needed as to how SLIP was estimated from undifferentiated peat.
(5) Lines 305 to 309. 620+50=670 basal peat data points, which doesn't match 640.
(6) It would be better to show the position of the cross section in Figure 3 in the index map.
(7) Line 398. How were marine carbon and delta R estimated? How many shells did you used for SLIP?
(8) Estimate of compaction is not clear. How was the amount of compaction calculated from the decompaction factor? More detail explanation is required.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-271-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-271', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Oct 2024
General Comments
The authors produce a database of Holocene sea level and water level indicators for the Netherlands that follows the standardization practices of the HOLSEA working group. Data standardization includes the collection of a wide variety of metadata related to each data point, all of which is funneled into a single spreadsheet for easy use. I commend the authors on their careful work, which lays the foundation for a generation of sea level studies at regional and global scale. The authors deserve particular applause for their care in noting the circumstances in which each type of correction is typically used – a step beyond the standard HOLSEA database paper and one which will benefit future sea level scientists. This study stands to receive many, many citations and represents a major advance in sea level studies for this area. I have a strongly favorable view of the manuscript.
In responding to some of the questions posed by the ESSD reviewer guidelines below, I make a few suggestions for minor ways to improve the manuscript. Were the authors to accept none of these suggestions, the manuscript would still be a valuable contribution and would be publishable as-is. Good job. Well done.
- Are the data and methods presented new?
The methods here follow standard protocols – a strength of this sort of study – and the authors present both existing and new data.
- Is there any potential of the data being useful in the future?
There is great potential for the data to be useful in the future.
- Are methods and materials described in sufficient detail?
The methods are generally described in sufficient detail to be reproduceable.
- Are any references/citations to other data sets or articles missing or inappropriate?
The article would be improved by citing all of the data sources in the main text. This would give the original papers more credit and reduce the hassle for readers who want to track individual papers down. The article would be further improved by providing a list of the papers that were excluded, including papers presenting “samples from intercalated peat layers from shallower positions than the basal peats” (L187), “Studies sampling peat at inland locations above +1 m MSL” (L193), and studies presenting samples from pingos (L195). The authors make the good point that this dataset should ideally be a living one with regular updates. Documenting papers that were examined but excluded will make easier the efforts of future workers who want to improve this database.
- Is the article itself appropriate to support the publication of a data set?
The article is appropriate to support the publication of the dataset.
- Is the data set accessible via the given identifier? Is the data set complete? Are error estimates and sources of errors given (and discussed in the article)? Are the accuracy, calibration, processing, etc. state of the art? Are common standards used for comparison? Is the data set significant – unique, useful, and complete?
Yes
- Are there any inconsistencies within these, implausible assertions or data, or noticeable problems which would suggest the data are erroneous (or worse). If possible, apply tests (e.g. statistics). Unusual formats or other circumstances which impede such tests in your discipline may raise suspicion. Is the data set itself of high quality? is the data set usable in its current format and size? Are the formal metadata appropriate? Is the length of the article appropriate?
The article is thorough and seems not to omit major details.
- Is the overall structure of the article well structured and clear? Is the language consistent and precise? Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used? Are figures and tables correct and of high quality? Is the data set publication, as submitted, of high quality?
The overall structure is clear and the language consistently precise. Abbreviations are defined and correctly used and publication is of high quality, as are the data themselves.
- By reading the article and downloading the data set, would you be able to understand and (re-)use the data set in the future?
Yes.
- Is there any potential of the data being useful? This is clearly the most important decision. There are at least three sub-criteria to evaluate:
- Uniqueness: it should not be possible to replicate the experiment or observation on a routine basis. Thus, any data set on a variable supposed or suspected to reflect changes in the Earth system deserves to be considered unique. This is also the case for cost-intensive data sets which will not be replicated due to financial reasons. A new or improved method should not be trivial or obvious.
- Usefulness: it should be plausible that the data, alone or in combination with other data sets, can be used in future interpretations, for the comparison to model output or to verify other experiments or observations. Other possible uses mentioned by the authors will be considered.
- Completeness: a data set or collection must not be split intentionally, for example, to increase the possible number of publications. It should contain all data that can be reviewed without unnecessary increase of workload and can be reused in another context by a reader.
The labor that went into compiling these data is significant and could not be easily reproduced. The authors describe possible future uses, of which there could be many. The data have not been split intentionally.
- The data must be presented readily and accessible for inspection and analysis to make the reviewer's task possible. Even if a data set submitted is the first ever published (on a parameter, in a region, etc.), its claimed accuracy, the instrumentation employed, and methods of processing should reflect the "state of the art" or "best practices". Considering all conditions and influences presented in the article, these claims and factors must be mutually consistent. The reviewer will then apply his or her expert knowledge and operational experience in the specific field to perform tests (e.g. statistical tests) and cast judgement on whether the claimed findings and its factors – individually and as a whole – are plausible and do not contain detectable faults.
The data are reflect state of the art and best practices. The authors do not present scientific findings beyond the data itself, thus not needing statistical tests. But from visual inspection of Figures 9 and 10, the data pass the ‘sniff’ test, in that they follow the glacial isostatic adjustment-driven pattern that one would expect from sea-level data in this area and accurately represent previous studies, of which there are many.
- Long articles are not expected. Regarding the style, the aim is to develop stereotypical wording so that unambiguous meaning can be expressed and understood without much effort. The article should express clearly what has been found, where, when, and how. The article text and references should contain all information necessary to evaluate all claims about the data set or collection, whether the claims are explicitly written down in the article, or implicit, through the data being published or their metadata. The authors should point to suitable software or services for simple visualization and analysis, keeping in mind that neither the reviewer nor the casual "reader" will install or pay for it.
By the metrics outlined above, the authors go beyond the ESSD standards for publication. Indeed, I would have expected to see a manuscript of this quality submitted to QSR or another similar publication. However, the article does clearly express the contents of the dataset and therefore is suitable for ESSD.
Further notes
+ The authors mention including new datapoints from the North Holland Flevoland fringe region but do not include a specific section describing those data. Suggestion to either include a section describing those data or to explicitly describe why that section does not exist.
+L520: the authors mention an optional correction related to long-term tectonic and sediment loading related subsidence and cite previous work on this background rate. Given the level of detail of this manuscript, it would be helpful to explicitly state what constraints are used to produce this longterm subsidence rate, which must be older than MIS-5e if it was also used for a Last Interglacial sea-level database.
+ On my first read through, a number of small typos popped out. These errors were small and do not detract from the manuscript’s quality. While I do not have time to read the full 35 page manuscript a second time in depth to catch those typos, I encourage the authors to proof their manuscript prior to acceptance.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-271-RC2 -
AC1: 'Author Response to Reviewers Comments on essd-2024-271', Kim de Wit, 10 Oct 2024
We thank the two reviewers for their kind words and their useful comments.
The comments raised by the reviewers are clearly stated and seem to require no major revisions. Most comments recommend additional clarification or explanations in the main text, with which we agree, and we foresee no further discussion on these topics. We will use the comments raised to improve our manuscript and clarify the specific sections that were commented on.
Here we respond to the comments per reviewer and briefly describe the proposed revisions:
RC1:
Comments 2 and 6 are helpful suggestions for additional visual guides in Fig. 1a, considering the palaeo-valleys and locations of the cross-sections from Fig. 3. We will use these in the new version.
Comment 5 refers to the total number of basal peats that do not add up. This is indeed an error that slipped into the text since the number of accepted Top basal peat samples should be ~20 instead of ~50.
Comments 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 refer to specific sections that require more clarification or additional explanations of certain topics. We thank the reviewer for the clear questions and suggestions. We agree that the manuscript will benefit from these proposed additions, and we will incorporate the changes in the text.
RC2:
Comments 1 and 2 refer to two sections that required additional content, one about the new data points included in the HOLSEA-NL data set and one about the constraints of the long-term tectonic and sediment loading-related subsidence rates. Supporting information on both topics will be included in the revised manuscript.
RC2 also recommends including the data sources from the HOLSEA-NL data set in the paper to give more credit to the original sources and improve findability. We fully agree with this suggestion and we will incorporate the sources in the citation list and add an overview of the number of samples per reference.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-271-AC1
Data sets
HOLSEA-NL: Holocene water level and sea-level indicator dataset for the Netherlands Kim de Wit and Kim M. Cohen https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11098447
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 336 | 98 | 75 | 509 | 13 | 12 |
- HTML: 336
- PDF: 98
- XML: 75
- Total: 509
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1