Uncertainties in break-up markers along the Iberia–Newfoundland margins illustrated by new seismic data

Causer, Annabel; Pérez-Díaz, Lucía; Adam, Jürgen; Eagles, Graeme

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-397-2020

Articles | Volume 11, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-397-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Understanding the unknowns: the impact of uncertainty in the...

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-397-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 2

Research article

|

30 Mar 2020

Research article |

| 30 Mar 2020

Uncertainties in break-up markers along the Iberia–Newfoundland margins illustrated by new seismic data

Annabel Causer, Lucía Pérez-Díaz, Jürgen Adam, and Graeme Eagles

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Mar 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Sep 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Interactive comment on “Uncertainties in breakup markers along the Iberia-Newfoundland margins illustrated by new seismic data” by Annabel Causer et al.', Alexander L. Peace, 11 Oct 2019
- AC1: 'Response to Reviewer 1', Annabel Causer, 18 Dec 2019
RC2: 'Interactive discussion "Uncertainties in breakup markers along the Iberia-Newfoundland margins illustrated by new seismic data"', Frauke Klingelhoefer, 21 Nov 2019
- AC2: 'Response to Reviewer 2', Annabel Causer, 18 Dec 2019
RC3: 'Review of manuscript entitle “Uncertainties in breakup markers along the Iberia-Newfoundland margins illustrated by new seismic data” by Annabel Causer , Lucía Pérez-Díaz , Jürgen Adam and Graeme Eagles', Anonymous Referee #3, 05 Dec 2019
- AC3: 'Response to Reviewer 3', Annabel Causer, 18 Dec 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Annabel Causer on behalf of the Authors (18 Dec 2019) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Jan 2020) by Juan Alcalde

RR by Alexander L. Peace (16 Jan 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Authors,

Having now read the revised version of “Uncertainties in breakup markers along the Iberia-Newfoundland margins illustrated by new seismic data”, as well as the responses to all three reviewers, I can confirm that in my opinion the revisions that I suggested have now largely been implemented. Where the authors have chosen not to modify the manuscript as a result of my comments I am now mostly satisfied that they have either now made alternative corrections or clarified the point. An example of this latter aspect is the decision to not include a new figure showing the magnetic anomalies, and instead adding additional comparable content to figure 1. I also wanted to say that I support the justification by the authors to reviewer 3 as to why their work is sufficiently different from the work of Nirrengarten et al. However, I am not entirely sure I follow the logic expressed to reviewer 2 regarding the usefulness of GPlates, but it seems like GPlates would perhaps not be capable of extending this study anyway.

Thus, overall I think that generally the authors have sufficiently revised their manuscript in response to the reviewer comments. However, I note a few very minor points below regarding the figures that I think will further improve the revised manuscript. As such, I recommend that the paper is accepted for publication in Solid Earth after undergoing the minor technical corrections I list below. This paper will in my opinion make an excellent contribution to Solid Earth and I look forward to seeing the final version published.

Kind regards,

Dr. Alexander Peace
McMaster University

Minor technical corrections to figures:

Figure 1 – This figure needs a colour bar, as was the case with figure 1 in the previous version. In addition the ‘white envelopes’ are nearly impossible to see against the colour scale chosen (GMT ocean?).

Figure 2 – Although it is stated in the responses that the text size has been increased this does not appear to be the case, or if it has it’s still too small in my opinion.

Figure 3 – As with the previous figure the text size has only slightly been increased and I think it would be better if it was made much larger.

Figure 4 – I can confirm that the suggested changes have been made.

Figure 5-7 – I can confirm that the suggested changes have been made.

Figure 8 – I can confirm that the suggested changes have been made.

Figure 9 – I can confirm that this figure is now substantially improved.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (30 Jan 2020) by Juan Alcalde

AR by Annabel Causer on behalf of the Authors (04 Feb 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (06 Feb 2020) by Juan Alcalde

ED: Publish as is (17 Feb 2020) by Susanne Buiter (Executive editor)

AR by Annabel Causer on behalf of the Authors (19 Feb 2020)

Short summary

Here we discuss the validity of so-called “break-up” markers along the Newfoundland margin, challenging their perceived suitability for plate kinematic reconstructions of the southern North Atlantic. We do this on the basis of newly available seismic transects across the Southern Newfoundland Basin. Our new data contradicts current interpretations of the extent of oceanic lithosphere and illustrates the need for a differently constraining the plate kinematics of the Iberian plate pre M0 times.