the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Oct 2024
Deep-Time Marine Sedimentary Element Database
Abstract. Geochemical data from ancient marine sediments are crucial for studying palaeoenvironments, palaeoclimates, and elements’ cycles. With increased accessibility to geochemical data, many databases have emerged. However, there remains a need for a more comprehensive database that focuses on deep-time marine sediment records. Here, we introduce the “Deep-Time Marine Sedimentary Element Database” (DM-SED). The DM-SED has been built upon the “Sedimentary Geochemistry and Paleoenvironments Project” (SGP) database with the new compilation of 34,938 data entries from 433 studies, totalling 63,691 entries. The DM-SED contains 2,412,085 discrete marine sedimentary data points, including major and trace elements and some isotopes. It includes 9,271 entries from the Precambrian and 54,420 entries from the Phanerozoic, thus providing significant references for reconstructing deep-time Earth system evolution. The data files described in this paper are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13898366 (Lai et al., 2024).
- Preprint
(1406 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Nov 2024)
-
RC1: 'Review of paper n. essd-2024-435 ‘Deep-Time Marine Sedimentary Element Database’', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Nov 2024
reply
General comment
Lai and co-authors present an extensive database on geochemical data (major and trace elements, stable isotopes) from deep-time (3.8 Ga to present) marine sediments, i.e. the Deep-Time Marine Sedimentary Element Database (DM-SED). The DM-SED builds upon the Sedimentary Geochemistry and Paleoenvironments Project (SGP) previously presented by Farrel et al. (2021), which is here significantly expanded adding nearly 35,000 new entries, totaling 63,691 entries with 2,412,085 discrete data points. New data supplement spatiotemporal gaps in the SGP and are largely from the Phanerozoic, although substantial new contribution for the Precambrian is provided as well.
I commend Lai et al. for digging out so many new data from the literature. The paper reads well, is clear and concise, and overall sufficient detail is provided in each section. The database is relatively well organized and easy to read. I appreciated that the authors made clear the limitations of their database, which my hamper the use of some listed entries. About this point, my concern is that the lack of any information on the methodology used to obtain the data compiled in DM-SED could discourage some users, given that methodological precision may vary significantly for elements. Therefore, I encourage the authors to integrate this information when available. Alternatively, they could add one or more entries to provide information on the methodology at a later time while keeping the database up to date.
Concluding, I would recommend this database and the companion paper for publication after minor revisions, as they provide a valuable contribution to help geoscientists aiming to improve our knowledge on climate, environments, and biogeochemical cycles from the geological past.
Specific comments
Section 3 – Dataset screening and processing
For completeness, it may be useful to specify the exact coordinate reference system used to express Modern latitude and longitude.
Database file (static copy v. 0.0.1)
I recommend the authors to follow the order listed in lines 127-135 and Table 3. Specifically, I suggest to move isotopic values immediately after carbon element values, and place References and Project details on the far right. I also suggest to avoid abbreviations in the field LithName. If information on the methodology will be provided, it may be included before listing References and Project details.
Technical comments
Line 18: I suggest to replace ‘for studying’ with ‘to study’
Line 25: since the data set focuses only on few isotopes (O, C, S, and N), it may be worth to specify them here or maybe make clear that only stable isotopes are targeted (as opposed to radiogenic ones, for instance)
Line 32: technically speaking I think ‘concentration’ is not correct here because you are referring to a solid. I suggest content, distribution or amount
Line 34: what does ‘its’ refer to? please be more specific
Line 36: replace ‘reconstruct’ with ‘reconstructing’
Line 37: consider ‘perturbations’ instead of ‘changes’; I would also suggest to end the sentence as ‘… thereby revealing mechanisms driving past climate fluctuations’
Line 43: suggested change ‘Oxygen isotopes (d18O) from fossilized marine organisms’
Lines 84-87: consider simplifying this sentence. A suggestion may be ‘…data on ancient marine sediments, they have shortcomings such as limited spatial coverage, the lack of age data and coarse age resolution, the absence of recent publications, and missing information from original publications.’
Line 87: replace ‘have established’ with ‘propose’
Line 96: replace ‘data’ with ‘portal’ or ‘database’. The same goes for line 312
Lines 105-107: the sentence is not clear in its current form. Please consider rephrasing
Line 115: suggested change ‘ … entries from 433 studies, spanning approximately 3800 Ma and including entries…’
Lines 114-118: the sentence is quite long. It may be better to split it in two after the list of all countries
Line 131: the comma after TOC is probably a mistake and there is a bracket missing here
Line 192: suggested change ‘types of rocks’ or ‘rock types’
Line 193: add ‘the’ before lithostratigraphic
Line 194: maybe you could rephrase as ‘however, for data from marine drilling sites’. What do you mean exactly with ‘there were no corresponding group names’? I this referred to lithological information? please be more precise here
Lines 209-210: ‘And the project includes two parts: new compilation and SGP’ please rephrase this sentence
Line 223-224: suggested change ‘For carbon elements, TOC has the largest record (33,216 entries), followed by Total C (9,201 entries), while Cinorg has the lowest record (7,194 entries).’
Line 232: be more specific here. I suggest ‘Within the Phanerozoic’ in place of ‘From this’
Lines 231-239: it may be good her to provide some temporal references. For instance age intervals for the Phanerozoic and Proterozoic Eons, and for the main Eras mentioned in the text. Alternatively, my suggestion is to include Eons in Figure 4a and Eras in Figure 4b (see below)
Line 285: I think adding a short last sentence on the distribution of data in the Ternary-Quaternary may be useful to increase completeness of the description
Figure 3: is there a specific reason why the list in each table is in reverse order than mentioned in the text (lines 130-135)?
Figure 4: I suggest the authors to indicate here Eons (Fig. 4a) and Eras (Fig. 4b) mentioned in the text to improve clarity. Additionally, abbreviations should be clarified, if not done elsewhere
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-435-RC1
Data sets
Deep-Time Marine Sedimentary Element Database Jiankang Lai, Haijun Song, Daoliang Chu, Jacopo Dal Corso, Erik A. Sperling, Yuyang Wu, Xiaokang Liu, Lai Wei, Mingtao Li, Hanchen Song, Yong Du, Enhao Jia, Yan Feng, Huyue Song, Wenchao Yu, Qingzhong Liang, Xinchuan Li, and Hong Yao https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13898366
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 233 | 53 | 9 | 295 | 5 | 8 |
- HTML: 233
- PDF: 53
- XML: 9
- Total: 295
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1