the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Crustal structure of the East African Limpopo margin, a strike-slip rifted corridor along the continental Mozambique Coastal Plain and North Natal Valley
Philippe Schnürle
Angélique Leprêtre
Fanny Verrier
Louise Watremez
Joseph Offei Thompson
Philippe de Clarens
Daniel Aslanian
Maryline Moulin
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 20 Aug 2021)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 02 Feb 2021)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on se-2020-209', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Mar 2021
This manuscript presents new images of the crust and uppermost mantle along a profile offshore the Mozambique Coastal Plain. The authors analyze multichannel and wide-angle seismic data using mature software (CGG-Veritas Geocluster and RAYINVR). The P-wave tomography results show a thinned crust in the northeastern end of the Limpopo margin, in contrast to the 34-km-thick crust in the southwestern part of the Limpopo margin and the North Natal Valley. The authors calibrate their tectonostratigraphic analysis with industrial well logs, and suggest a strike-slip rifting process around 155 Ma ago that separated Antarctica and Africa plates.
I cannot make comments on data analysis as that is beyond my specialty. Although the discussions are thorough, I still find it hard to follow as a reader who is not familiar with this region. Low-quality figures prevent me from evaluating the results in depth. Here are some suggestions on presenting.
- The abstract is too long. It is challenging to get the take-away message from the abstract.
- The font sizes in almost all figures are too small, making it difficult to evaluate the results and understand the discussions.
- It would be better to show a large-scale tectonic map or plate reconstruction map as the first figure to explain the East-Gondwana break-up discussed in the introduction section.
- I understand Fig. 8 is the primary product of data analysis. How is it related to the following discussions? It would be helpful to label certain features on top of the tomography image.
- All geographic features mentioned in this paper need to be labeled in Fig. 1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-209-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Mikael Evain, 28 Apr 2021
We first would like to thank Referee #1 for his time to review our manuscript despite being unfamiliar with the study area and this type of data analysis. We understand that the initial version of our manuscript might have been hard to read. Therefore, we have prepared a new version that will hopefully be easier to read and follow. We made a full review of our manuscript to improve its clarity and respond to the community and the two referee comments. It now includes, as suggested by Referee #1:
- a shorter and more straightforward abstract,
- updated figures with improved visibility,
- an introductory figure that pictures the general geodynamic framework of the studied region,
More generally, we paid particular attention that all geographic locations and features mentioned in the text are visible on figures. We also extended figure 1 (which is now figure 2) which should now summarizes most of the cited geographical locations. With respect to figure 8 (now figure 12), which is indeed the primary product of our study, it has been moved further down the text in the section 5 which specifically focuses on our results and their interpretations. Within this section we systematically refer to this figure (the velocity model) to present a top to bottom view of the crustal structure of the margin that is key for the following discussion.
Best regards,
Mikael Evain on behalf of all co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-209-AC2
-
CC1: 'Comment on se-2020-209', Christian Olaf Mueller, 21 Mar 2021
The study is about the crustal structure at the southern Mozambican margin and its geodynamic evolution during the initial Gondwana break-up. Marine seismic refraction data are investigated to depict the velocity structure along a single profile at the transition from the Mozambique Basin (MB) towards the Northern Natal Valley (NNV). Seismic reflection and gravity data are incorporated for improved interpretation of the sediment sequence and model verification, respectively. The authors suggest the Northern Natal Valley to be floored by thick unrifted continental crust and the presence of thinned continental crust east of the “Limpopo margin” (LM), where ductile shearing caused the flow of lower crust from the Mozambique Coastal Plains (MCP) and NNV towards an inferred “corridor” of anomalous crust. These crustal deformations are proposed to be accompanied by intense magmatism during initial N-S opening of the Africa-Antarctica Corridor from 155 Ma on.
The presented new seismic and gravity data is recorded along a single profile in the scope of the PAMELA project (seven refraction profiles in total). The data and applied methods are suitable to reveal new evidence on the crustal structure and geodynamic evolution of the southern Mozambican margin, which is still under debate.
However, reading the manuscript, gives the impression that the data interpretation is somehow biased, without discussing alternative approaches. My comments to this manuscript aim on highlighting author statements which seem to me not adequately discussed or contradict already existing constraints. Simultaneously, I will provide alternative interpretations, which should be accounted for and unbiasedly discussed in an updated version of the manuscript. Furthermore, I provide hints for an improved structuring of the paper.
Main issues:
Interpretation of the volcanic layers SV1 and SV2: I agree on the suggested different reflection patterns of the acoustic basement at Karoo lavas with the underlying volcano-sedimentary sequence compared to the reflection pattern at volcanic/oceanic crust. Consequently, it is correct, that the identification of profile segments of different seismic signature at the acoustic basement can contribute to the discussion on a segment’s crustal nature, as exemplarily the presence of the pre-break-up volcano sedimentary sequence of the Karoo Group is compatible with continental crust. However, regarding the different reflection pattern of the acoustic basement at the MZ3 profile, I partly disagree to the interpretation of the authors. From my point of view, seismic signature of the acoustic basement is of high amplitude and similar reflection pattern for areas northeast of OBS26 (basement high) as well as for the entire area southwest of OBS09 (partially influenced by the younger volcanism at the Almirante Leite Ridge), which contrasts the opinion of the authors. Same high amplitude seismic signature is observed at main parts of the NNV south of OBS08 at profile MZ6 (until profile end) and southeast of OBS14 at profile MZ2 (previous reviews). Reflection characteristics of the acoustic basement in these areas is partly rugged and hummocky and intra-basement reflections are mostly chaotic and seldomly indicate short subparallel reflections. In close vicinity to the study area, such a seismic signature and velocities (SV1 and SV2 of this manuscript) are observed at the upper basement layer of the southern Mozambique Ridge (MozR) (Gohl et al. 2011, Fischer et al. 2016) and at several other oceanic plateaus (e.g. Agulhas Plateau, Shatsky Rise, Manihiki Plateau). In contrast, clear subparallel and dipping reflectors can be observed along profile MZ3 between OBS station 10 to 21 (this manuscript) as well as at the MCP and the northwestern part of the NNV. For these areas of clear parallel reflections in the uppermost layer of the acoustic basement I agree to the presence of the volcano-sedimentary Karoo Group (also drilled by several boreholes in this area). According to the study of Mueller & Jokat (2019) the investigated MZ3 profile runs mostly just southeast to their supposed COB (Scenario 2, Sc2) and crosses the COB at the most southeastern edge of the Inharrime Ridge (OBS 11-21), which they consider to be floored by thinned continental crust with a massive magmatic underplate, allowing the presence of Karoo Group sediments in this segment (OBS10 to 25) and explaining the different seismic signatures of the acoustic basement along the MZ3 profile. Apart from that, picking two separate layers (SV1 and SV2) in this segment seems to me quite ambitious, due to the partly hidden arrivals of SV2 (e.g. Fig. 4, OBS 25 southwest direction) and smooth transition to Pg1 (e.g. Fig. 5, OBS 11 northwest direction). In general, the described different characteristics of the upper acoustic basement and the similarities to other studies in the vicinity of the study area should be described in the manuscript and it needs to be indicated that this alternative interpretation, questions your conclusion of “undoubtedly” “continental nature of the NNV” (line 425p).
Comparison and discussion of the velocity structure: Unfortunately, the depicted velocity structure is not well discussed and is biased towards continental crust. The authors extracted 1D velocity-depth profiles of the NNV and compared these to different types of continental crust and to other profiles of the PAMELA project, revealing that crustal velocities of the NNV only hardly fit to extended or rifted continental crust (extracted velocities are at outer/faster edge). The presented comparison of the NNV crust to standard oceanic crust (as usually observed far inside oceanic basins) seems to me not very meaningful as this scenario is of course not likely and of course does not reveal similarities. However, unfortunately the authors do not compare the NNV’s velocity structure to any of the already existing seismic refraction profiles at the Mozambican margin (Leinweber et al. 2013, Mueller et al. 2016, Mueller & Jokat 2017), the MozR (Gohl et al. 2011) or the conjugate Antarctic margin (Jokat et al 2004)! From my point of view, the velocity structure of the main part of the NNV should additionally be compared to entire volcanic features/oceanic plateaus (like the MozR, located just south of the NNV, or the Iceland-Greenland Ridge or the 90ºE Ridge, …). I‘ve added such a comparison to this comment. The layers SV1 and SV2 at the main NNV are assigned as basement layer, based on the described seismic evidences in the previous bullet point. The comparison shows clear similarities for the velocity structure of the NNV to oceanic volcanic structures, with typical (i) velocity jumps in the upper crust/layer 2 (your SV1, SV2 and Pg1), (ii) monotonous velocity increase in the lower crust/layer 3 and (iii) a distinct high-velocity lower crustal body (HVLCB) (Carlson et al. 1980; Mueller et al. 2016). A comparison to the conjugate margin in the Lazarev Sea in Antarctica (Jokat et al. 2004) reveals very similar upper basement velocities for the Explora Wedge and a general similar velocity structure with a HVLCB, leading Jokat et al. (2004) to suggest the segments composition to be of only volcanic material. Furthermore, the seismic refraction study at the MozR (Gohl et al. 2011) reveals as well a HVLCB of similar thickness and velocity. Apart from the discussion on the crustal nature in the NNV, the authors declare the velocity structure at the basement high at the northeastern end of the profile and at the “corridor” as indicative for thinned continental crust, based on the comparison to standard oceanic crust, vz-profiles of other studies of the PAMELA project and a slightly thicker lower crust. In this regard, I suggest again a comparison to the conjugate Lazarev Sea in Antarctica. Here, profile 96110 (Jokat et al. 2004) reveals for the northern part, in the area of well-expressed magnetic reversal anomalies the presence of oceanic crust, which is as well characterized by an 8 km thick lower crust of same velocity. From my point of view, such a similarity should be mentioned and allows the alternative interpretation of oceanic crust at OBS32 to 28 of profile MZ3 (maybe up to OBS 27 at the basement high).
Origin of the high-velocity lower crustal body (HVLCB): The authors interpret velocities higher than 7.0 km/s as lower continental crust with high magmatic content. Additionally, they write that “undoubtedly” (line 486) lower continental crust flow from the MCP, NNV and LM towards the “corridor” of anomalous crust and cause the slightly thickened lower crust in this area. This is a speculation and can not be ruled out, although wondering why the lower crust in the corridor shows velocity lower than 7 km/s (like at the conjugate margin) and contradictorily the lower flowed crust at the MCP, NNV and LM has velocities higher than 7 km/s? However, from my point of view, lower crustal boudinage might be only of minor or local order during initial break-up at this margin. Discussion on the HVLCB should address the two different expressions of HVLCB in the study area, and requires a discussion in the light of earlier refracted studies in the vicinity of the study area and at the conjugate margin. The profile MZ6 (Moulin et al. 2020) shows for km 250-430 a pronounced velocity increase in the lower crust with 7.4-7.5 km/s. This HVLCB is exactly of same length and velocity as observed at the Central Mozambican margin (Leinweber et al. 2013, Mueller & Jokat 2017). A HVLCB of this type is a common feature at volcanic passive margins and underlies the COB at the Central Mozambican margin, where the HVLCB’s origin is interpreted in terms of magmatic underplating. Along profile MZ6 the HVLCB (velocity up to 7.4-7.5 km/s) underlies the transition from the MCP and most northern part of the NNV towards the main part of the NNV, with its different seismic signature of the acoustic basement. This distinct similarity requires the discussion of a possible COB in this segment. A similar velocity structure of the HVLCB is only tentatively interpreted below the volcanic flows/SDRs of the Explora Wedge at the conjugate Antarctic margin (covered by ice) and are as well interpreted to mark the COB. Regarding the second type of HVLCB (velocities of 7.0 to 7.3 km/s and thickness up to 16 km) below the NNV, it’s worth discussing that the same HVLCB is observed at the oceanic plateau of the MozR, just south of the study area. Gohl et al. (2011) suggest the HVLCB to originate by the massive addition of mantle-derived magma, as observed at several oceanic plateaus. The highlighted similarities in the general velocity structure (previous bullet point) and observed HVLCBs in the vicinity of the study area and at the conjugate margin, need to be discussed in the manuscript and demonstrate an alternative interpretation of the derived velocity structure and crustal nature at the NNV.
Density modelling: I appreciate that the authors are incorporating gravity modelling for cross-checking their velocity model. However, I do not agree to the declared “well” (line 262) fit. Obviously, there is a misfit of up to 40 mGal at profile km 310-400 and up to 20 mGal at km 120-250. Such a misfit, should motivate for checking the modelled velocities, interfaces and velocity-density conversion. Furthermore, you should discuss possible reasons for the preferred low mantle density, as this significantly differs to other combined seismic/gravity studies at the Mozambican and conjugate Antarctic margin (upper mantle densities of about 3.3 g/cm³). As an idea for a more significant cross-check of your velocity models, I suggest performing a 3D gravity modelling (separate study and not to be included in this manuscript). You have a great database of seismic data, which is able to provide important constraints. Outcome of the 3D gravity model will be new insights into the crustal setting of the MCP (parts which are not covered by your seismic study), cross-check of your velocity profiles and an improved understanding about the crustal setting in the transition from the MCP to the cratons and orogenic belts in the west and towards the Mozambique Basin in the east.
Proposed geodynamic evolution and pre-drift constellation: The proposed “loose fit” break-up model (Thompson 2017, Thompson et al. 2019) might be compatible with the authors proposed crustal composition and nature at the MCP and NNV and presents a scenario which is worth discussing. However, based on the incomplete discussion of the seismic data without highlighting alternative possibilities, it seems to me that the data interpretation is biased to support the in advance published break-up model of Thompson (2017) and Thompson et al. (2019) (same research group). I would highly appreciate if prior to geodynamic modelling, at first an unbiased study of the seismic refraction data is performed and subsequently(!) a break-up model is developed. Besides declaring the own results as “undoubtedly”, it would be fair to mention, that the authors postulated break-up scenario does not account for (i) identified alignments of cross-continent-wide tectonic features observed in magnetic data (Mueller & Jokat 2019), (ii) drift-related fractures traced in gravity and magnetic data until closest to the conjugate margins depicting an early NW-SE rifting/drifting (prior 155 Ma), (iii) magnetic spreading anomalies dated to magnetic field reversal isochrones of up to M38 (ca. 164 Ma) in the Mozambique Basin, (iv) significant difference in the length of the MCP-MozR rift segment to the conjugate rift segment in the Lazarev Sea, (v) alternative plausible interpretation of the crustal composition and nature of the NNV to thickened volcanic/oceanic crust, (vi) continuous magnetic lineations at the NNV, which are parallel to magnetic spreading anomalies in the Mozambique Basin (of proposed same age), (vii) … As previously outlined, the authors break-up model is worth discussing, but the seismic data investigation allows an alternative interpretation, which does not rule out a tight Gondwana fit. Exemplarily, the break-up model of Mueller & Jokat (2019) suggests a tight Gondwana fit, allowing thinned continental crust with a massive magmatic underplate at the southern MCP and at the northern part of the NNV and thick volcanic/oceanic crust at the NNV and MozR, by simultaneously accounting for the exemplarily mentioned additional constraints. Finally, I doubt, that the studies of Domingues et al. (2016) and Hanyu et al. (2017) should be graded as a “strong support” (line 52p) for a “loose fit” scenario and break-up model of the authors. Domingues et al. (2016) compare ambient noise Rayleigh wave group velocity curves in the MCP to “typical oceanic crust” and standard continental crust. Not surprising that a comparison to normal oceanic crust of 6-8 km thickness does not reveal a similarity. None of the research studies, which prefer a tight Gondwana fit, suggest the presence of normal oceanic crust at the MCP. In the following, Domingues et al. (2016) note in general “much slower velocities at short periods than typical continental crust-type theoretical curves” and “path coverage in the MCP region is poor for long periods and at these periods the measurements present higher uncertainties”, leading them to suggest the presence of a 20-30 km thick “transitional crust from continental to oceanic“ at the MCP. In contrast, the study of Hanyu et al. (2017) deals with gravity and magnetic data at the Natal Valley and MozR and assume the presence of highly stretched continental crust. Suggested crustal thickness at the MCP and NNV is 11-14 km, which is 2 to 3 times thinner than the crustal thickness suggested by the PAMELA project and clearly contradicts the results of the entire refraction study, which actually should be discussed in the manuscript. Furthermore, the trends of the magnetic anomaly lineations are partly adjusted and disproved by the incorporation of additional shipborne magnetic data in the NNV and the compilation of a consistent magnetic anomaly database and map for this area (Mueller & Jokat, 2019). Therefore, from my point of view, these studies should not be misused as a “strong support” for a loose fit break-up model, as these studies declare as well the ambiguous character of their interpretation.
Some more detailed comments:
- To support their interpretation, the authors cite at least 5 unpublished studies of the same research group. Since a reader and reviewer cannot check the content of these studies it is good scientific practice not to reference them for supporting a far-reaching interpretation.
- Through the text the authors give the impression that the presented data and study cover the MCP, although information is only gathered at is rims. This should be clearly highlighted.
- The paper needs a major reorganization. Within the “Methods” chapter 3 occurs a mix of methods results and interpretation. Chapter 4 is a mixture of results and discussion. A clear distinction is required for publishing a scientific study and would increase the readability of the manuscript.
- Identified phases in seismic refraction data cannot be directly labelled as continental at their first mention, as their investigation and interpretation is the main objective of this research study, the crustal nature of the research area is still under debate, other research studies of the same group are still under review and their results are so far not accepted by the scientific community.
Conclusion:
The manuscript provides several interesting and partly new indications for the sediment and crustal setting at the South Mozambique continental margin, which are worth to be discussed. However, the manuscript is lacking an open discussion of alternative interpretations and approaches. In my opinion, the study would highly profit from skipping any statements and discussion about the geodynamic evolution and break-up model (or only a short outlook at the end of the manuscript). The authors should focus on a thoroughly discussion of the crustal structure by including alternative approaches. Such a study will easily fill the entire manuscript and will be highly appreciated by the scientific community. Afterwards the obtained results can be incorporated in a break-up model. Finally, I recommend to integrate the investigation of profiles MZ4 and MZ5 to this manuscript, instead of publishing each profile separately. The current submission/publication strategy makes it impossible for reviewers and the readership to judge about the scientific results and to obtain a clear understanding on the research results, due to the limited access to other journals and manuscripts which are still under review.
I recommend to reject the manuscript, as the required changes to the manuscript structure, phase identification/picking of basement signals and unbiased interpretation and discussion are too extensive as to be accounted for in a major revision of normal timeframe. Furthermore, the rejection allows the incorporation of additional refraction profiles to this manuscript.
Kind regards,
Christian Olaf Mueller
References:
Carlson, R.L., Christensen, N.I., Moore, R.P., 1980. Anomalous crustal structures in ocean basins: continental fragments and oceanic plateaus. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 51, 171–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(80)90264-2.
Domingues, A., Silveira, G., Ferreira, A.M.G., Chang, S.-J., Custódio, S., Fonseca, J.F.B.D., 2016. Ambient noise tomography of the East African Rift in Mozambique. Geophys. J. Int. 204, 1565–1578. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv538.
Fischer, M.D., Uenzelmann-Neben, G., Jacques, G., Werner, R., 2017. The Mozambique Ridge: a document of massive multistage magmatism. Geophys. J. Int. 208, 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw403.
Gohl, K., Uenzelmann-Neben, G., Grobys, N., 2011. Growth and dispersal of a Southeast African large igneous province. South African J. Geol. 114, 379–386. https://doi.org/10.2113/gssajg.114.3-4.379.
Hanyu, T., Nogi, Y., Fujii, M., 2017. Crustal formation and evolution processes in the Natal Valley and Mozambique Ridge, off South Africa. Polar Sci. 13, 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2017.06.002.
Jokat, W., Ritzmann, O., Reichert, C., Hinz, K., 2004. Deep crustal structure of the continental margin off the Explora Escarpment and in the Lazarev Sea, East Antarctica. Mar. Geophys. Res. 25, 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11001-005-1337-9.
Leinweber, V.T., Klingelhoefer, F., Neben, S., Reichert, C., Aslanian, D., Matias, L., Heyde, I., Schreckenberger, B., Jokat, W., 2013. The crustal structure of the Central Mozambique continental margin - wide-angle seismic, gravity and magnetic study in the Mozambique Channel, Eastern Africa. Tectonophysics 599, 170–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2013.04.015.
Moulin, M., Aslanian, D., Evain, M., Lepretre, A., Schnurle, P., Verrier, F., Thompson, J., de Clarens, P., Leroy, S., Dias, N., the PAMELA-MOZ35 Team, 2020. Gondwana break-up: Messages from the North Natal Valley. Terra Nova 32, 3, 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12448
Mueller, C.O., Jokat, W., Schreckenberger, B., 2016. The crustal structure of Beira High, central Mozambique—combined investigation of wide-angle seismic and potential field data. Tectonophysics 683, 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.06.028.
Mueller, C.O., Jokat, W., 2017. Geophysical evidence for the crustal variation and distribution of magmatism along the central coast of Mozambique. Tectonophysics 712–713, 684–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.06.007.
Mueller, C.O., Jokat, W., 2019. The initial Gondwana break-up: A synthesis based on new potential field data of the Africa-Antarctica Corridor. Tectonophysics 750, 301-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.11.008
Thompson, J.O., 2017. The Opening of the Indian Ocean: What is the Impact on the East African, Madagascar and Antarctic Margins, and What are the Origins of the Aseismic Ridges? (PhD Thesis). 1 University of Rennes. https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00415/52637/
Thompson, J.O., Moulin, M., Aslanian, D., de Clarens, P., Guillocheau, F., 2019. New starting point for the Indian Ocean: Second phase of brealup for Gondwana. Earth-Science Reviews 191, 26-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.01.018
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Mikael Evain, 25 Mar 2021
We thank Christian Olaf Mueller for his interest in our preprint and for acknowledging the valuable inputs that our work brings to the current debate regarding the initial stages of Gondwana break-up along eastern African margins. However, his thorough and critical comment badly dissimulate his own - and his co-authors - actions to systematically prevent the publication or cut off any scientific discussion regarding any evidences that could provide alternatives to their recently published model, i.e. Mueller & Jokat (2019). We therefore profoundly regret Christian Olaf Mueller’s call for the rejection of our manuscript and wish to provide the Solid Earth community an early non exhaustive reply in order to balance some of the main concerns provided in this comment.
As Christian Olaf Mueller well noticed our manuscript is indeed one of many contributions from a large project called PAMELA (PAssive Margins Exploration Laboratories). This project was conducted by TOTAL and IFREMER and in collaboration with Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Université Rennes 1, Université Pierre and Marie Curie, CNRS, Univ. of Lisboa and IFPEN. Among the 7 scientific cruises conducted within the scope of the project, the Moz3-5 cruise acquired in 2016 new geophysical and geological data (bathymetry, piston cores, water column, sub-bottom profiles, gravity, magnetism, dredges, wide angle and reflection seismic) that represent a total of 193 Ocean Bottom Sismometers (OBS) records over 7 wide-angle seismic profiles on the southern-Mozambique margins. Four of these profiles were extended on land by the deployment of 125 additional land seismic stations. At present and as far as we know, this area is now one of the most covered in the world by deep wide-angle seismic data, with several crossing profiles to prevent over-interpretation on a single profile. The processing of this huge datasets also involved many people further preventing over-interpretation from one person over several profiles. We further had access, thanks to our collaboration with Schlumberger and Total, to a tremendous amount of industrial profiles over the entire study area that had to be digested. As it now widely accepted by the community, results from such large experiment are published in the form of several manuscripts in order to facilitate the review process, narrow and focus the scientific finding and message each article conveys but also to reward every scientist involved in the processing and interpretation which for each profile represent a huge amount of work.
Christian Olaf Mueller's main comment and general critic is that our manuscript 'gives the impression that the data interpretation is somehow biased, without discussing alternative approaches'. Underlying this comment is the critic that our manuscript takes the party of the presence of continental crust underlying the entire North Natal Valley (NNV) and Mozambique Coastal Plain (MCP) and does not sufficiently discuss alternative hypothesis regarding the crustal nature of these domains. Therefore, Christian Olaf Mueller recommend the discussion in our manuscript concentrate on these points rather than presenting a geodynamic evolution of the break-up. He further recommends to include additional data from the PAMELA project objecting that they are disseminated in other manuscripts, under review or inaccessible to the reader.
We are happy to recommend to Christian Olaf Mueller the reading of the two new detailed articles. He et al. (Marine Geology, 2021) analyses the acoustic basement structure and explains why it has to be dissociated from the Mozambique Ridge further south. Lepretre et al (JGR, 2021) further details the arguments in favor of the presence of continental crust that were already introduced in Moulin et al. (Terra Nova, 2020). These two articles present the results of two 600km long wide-angle crossing profiles. Such amphibious profiles are paramount while discussing the crustal nature across a margin.
Finally we would like to remind Christian Olaf Mueller that the Moz3-5 survey was dedicated to resolve major concerns regarding the crustal nature of the MCP/NNV as highlighted by Thompson et al (2019) who did a critical assessment of previous kinematic models that overlaps Antarctica with the MCP, including the model (Leinweber & Jokat 2011, 2012) on which he based is own (Mueller & Jokat, 2019).
'I would highly appreciate if prior to geodynamic modeling, at first an unbiased study of the seismic refraction data is performed and subsequently(!) a break-up model is developed'. Well, hopefully this reply should have clarified that such work has now been done, is published and available to anyone and that most of the issues raised regarding the NNV/MCP have already been discussed. Our manuscript is therefore well supported to tackle and propose an alternative break-up model along the Limpopo Margin and we will take full account of the remaining minor concerns in its revised version.
With our regards,
Mikael Evain on behalf of all co-authors.
References:
He Li, Yong Tang, Maryline Moulin, Daniel Aslanian, Mikael Evain, Philippe Schnurle, Angélique Leprêtre, Jiabiao Li,Seismic evidence for crustal architecture and stratigraphy of the Limpopo Corridor: New insights into the evolution of the sheared margin offshore southern Mozambique,Marine Geology, 2021, 106468, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2021.106468.
Leinweber, V.T., Jokat, W., 2011. Is there continental crust underneath the Northern Natal Valley and the Mozambique Coastal Plains. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L14303.
Leinweber, V.T., Jokat, W., 2012. The Jurassic history of the Africa-Antarctica corridor—new constraints from magnetic data on the conjugate continental margins. Tectonophysics 530-531, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2011.11.008.
Leprêtre, A., Schnürle, P., Evain, M., Verrier, F., Moorcroft, D., de Clarens, P., et al. (2021). Deep structure of the North Natal Valley (Mozambique) using combined wide‐angle and reflection seismic data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126, e2020JB021171. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB021171
Moulin, M., Aslanian, D., Evain, M., Lepretre, A., Schnurle, P., Verrier, F., Thompson, J., De Clarens, P., Leroy, S., Dias, N., and the PAMELA-MOZ35 team. 2020. Gondwana breakup: messages from the North Natal Valley. Terra Nova 32(3), 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12448
Mueller, C.O., Jokat, W., 2019. The initial Gondwana break-up: A synthesis based on new potential field data of the Africa-Antarctica Corridor. Tectonophysics 750, 301-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.11.008
Thompson, J.O., Moulin, M., Aslanian, D., de Clarens, P., Guillocheau, F., 2019. New starting point for the Indian Ocean: Second phase of brealup for Gondwana. Earth-Science Reviews 191, 26-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.01.018
The wide-angle and MCS Seismic data from Pamela-MOZ3-5 are available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.17600/16001600, http://dx.doi.org/10.17600/16009500 or by writing to the author, as it is specified in Moulin et al (2020).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-209-AC1 -
CEC1: 'Reply on CC1 and AC1', Susanne Buiter, 31 Mar 2021
The editors handling se-2020-209 have followed the discussion above. We would like to stress that Solid Earth encourages an open and constructive discussion of preprints, to stimulate further deliberation and thus help bring the work in preprints forward. We place strong value on a professional and polite tone in all debates and ask to refrain from personal criticisms. While we do not currently have separate guidelines for community comments, some guidance might be had from these two websites: https://www.solid-earth.net/policies/obligations_for_referees.html and https://www.solid-earth.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-209-CEC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on se-2020-209', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Mar 2021
This manuscript presents results from a recent active source seismic survey offshore the coastal plain of Mozambique. These results are interpreted in terms of the past breakup of Gondwana, and kinematic plate reconstructions are explored to explain the results. Unfortunately, in its current state, I had difficulty in following what the main new findings were from the geophysical analysis and how they supported the conclusions.
As a reader who was unfamiliar with the detailed tectonic history of the region, I found it difficult to follow the main points presented in this manuscript. There are references to many local geographic and geologic features throughout, as well as seismic profiles, which is fine. But it would be helpful if all of the major features that are discussed in the manuscript are introduced on one of the earlier figures.
This may also in part be due to my unfamiliarity with the particular region, but I found it very difficult to follow how the new results presented in this manuscript supported the conclusions related to the tectonics and geodynamics of the region. Perhaps a summary of the main, new structural findings from the seismic and gravity analyses that are then referred to throughout the discussion would help. Additionally, summary figures with the major interpreted features in the geophysical results labeled may also help.
The size of the figure text significantly affected my ability to understand the manuscript easily. Some of the figures, or parts of the figures showing the seismic results may be able to be moved to the supplement.
There are minor grammar mistakes throughout, as well as occasional other errors suggesting a level of incompleteness such as incomplete citation information, underscores in figure axes labels, etc. These should be cleaned up before publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-209-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Mikael Evain, 28 Apr 2021
We would like also to thank Referee #2 for his time to review our manuscript despite the difficulties faced. As mentioned in our reply to Referee #1, we have prepared a new version that will hopefully be easier to read and follow. We fully reviewed our manuscript to improve its clarity and respond to the community and the two referee comments. Among others we can mention that:
-all the figures have been improved for visibility and we paid particular attention they include all geographic localities mentioned in the text.
-we fully reworked our abstract for a more straightforward message
-we clarify our introduction which now better replaces this study within the scope of the larger Pamela Moz3-5 project. We further added an introductory figure presenting a broader geodynamic picture of south-eastern Gondwana breakup
-section 2 on geological settings now clearly mentions existing controversies about the area and further detail geological arguments that support them. Most specifically it includes dedicated paragraphs on the crustal nature of the MCP/NNV domain, the age of the Mozambique basin’s oceanic crust and controversies regarding the Mozambique ridge
-sections 3 and 4 now exclusively concentrate on data analysis, seismic modeling and validation of our final velocity model
-section 5 present all our results and our interpretation of the crustal structure of the Limpopo margin. It summarizes our findings before they are discussed in sections 6. We truly hope this will clarify the general message that our manuscript try to convey and how it is supported by geophysical evidences.
Best regards,
Mikael Evain on behalf of all co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-209-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Mikael Evain, 28 Apr 2021