Sinkholes and uvalas in evaporite karst: spatio-temporal development with links to base-level fall on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea

Watson, Robert A.; Holohan, Eoghan P.; Al-Halbouni, Djamil; Saberi, Leila; Sawarieh, Ali; Closson, Damien; Alrshdan, Hussam; Abou Karaki, Najib; Siebert, Christian; Walter, Thomas R.; Dahm, Torsten

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1451-2019

Articles | Volume 10, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1451-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Environmental changes and hazards in the Dead Sea region (NHESS/ACP/HESS/SE...

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1451-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 10, issue 4

Research article

|

30 Aug 2019

Research article |

| 30 Aug 2019

Sinkholes and uvalas in evaporite karst: spatio-temporal development with links to base-level fall on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea

Robert A. Watson, Eoghan P. Holohan, Djamil Al-Halbouni, Leila Saberi, Ali Sawarieh, Damien Closson, Hussam Alrshdan, Najib Abou Karaki, Christian Siebert, Thomas R. Walter, and Torsten Dahm

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Aug 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 11 Oct 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Referee comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Nov 2018
- AC1: 'Response to Reviewer 1 Comments', Robert Watson, 24 Apr 2019
RC2: 'Sinkholes, stream channels and base-level fall: a 50-year record of spatio-temporal development on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Nov 2018
- AC2: 'Response to Reviewer 2 Comments', Robert Watson, 24 Apr 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Robert Watson on behalf of the Authors (24 Apr 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 May 2019) by Amotz Agnon

RR by Jo De Waele (08 May 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear authors,
I attach an annotated ms with many corrections and some comments.
I have four major comments and concerns:
1. you published two papers on the same research area in Solid Earth (you cite them). What makes this new paper different and novel enough from the other two and worth publishing in Solid Earth? This aspect makes this paper seem less novel than it really is.
2. The paper is well prepared, but I believe there is a lack of more detailed geological information on the types of rocks involved. A general "alluvium", marls, clays etc. might not be sufficient to give the reader a good idea of which geological formations we are talking. I would have expected a detailed sedimentological, mineralogical and petrographical description of the sediments that are related to the sinkhole formation. I do not believe there is no information of a single drill hole, or some outcrops in the sinkholes themselves, that would allow to describe the geological units subdued to sinkhole formation in much more detail. How can these formations be distinguished? Any geochemical-mineralogical data on these formations (% of clay, sand, calcite, gypsum, halite...). I believe this is fundamental information to know how much dissolution can be responsible for void formation, and thus collapse.
3. The subdivision into mud, salt and alluvium sinkholes needs to be more described in detail. I suspect there is a gradual change from mud dominated to salt dominated and alluvial sinkholes. This subdivision is somewhat arbitrary (and can bias the analysis) and would need a clear description of the boundaries between these three classes of sinkholes. This comment is also related to the previous comment. How much % in salt would be needed to call a sinkhole a salt one and not a mud one ??? This division has also an impact upon your conclusions and discussions. I suggest to add a figure with the typical examples of these types of sinkholes... and make clear on what your division in three classes is based.
4. The comparison of your sinkholes and uvalas with those in limestone (and even gypsum) is somewhat forced. The processes at play in both situations are different (although having dissolution in common). Limestones are hard, and erosion plays a minor role, your sediments are easily erodible. Also times of formation are extremely different. I do not really like your effort of comparison. I would stick to the detailed description of what happened in your area, and focus on the processes at play, and describe the morphology of your sinkholes and uvalas (admitting your depressions can be defined as uvalas!?). In your situation there is a lot of piping involved, I believe. I am not convinced you can really talk about "conduits"...

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by Phil Murphy (26 Jun 2019)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (03 Jul 2019) by Amotz Agnon

AR by Robert Watson on behalf of the Authors (24 Jul 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (05 Aug 2019) by Amotz Agnon

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (05 Aug 2019) by CharLotte Krawczyk (Executive editor)

AR by Robert Watson on behalf of the Authors (07 Aug 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

The fall of the Dead Sea level since the 1960s has provoked the formation of over 6000 sinkholes, a major hazard to local economy and infrastructure. In this context, we study the evolution of subsidence phenomena at three area scales at the Dead Sea’s eastern shore from 1967–2017. Our results yield the most detailed insights to date into the spatio-temporal development of sinkholes and larger depressions (uvalas) in an evaporite karst setting and emphasize a link to the falling Dead Sea level.