|Review of the revised manuscript by Smeraglia et al |
The manuscript has substantially improved after the first round of review and revision. Most of my comments have been taken into account.
However, I think some revision is still required before potential acceptance, including changes in both text and figures. My main concern is related to figure 8. Especially, to me the authors wrongly overlook the Oligocene extension related to ECRIS in the depicted tectonic evolution, which is prejudiciable to the manuscript and may mislead the potential reader.
*Figure 1 : There are no lat/lon coordinates on the map and no vertical/horizontal scales on the cross section.
*Figure 1 : The section redrawn from Rime et al. fully ignores basement involvement in shortening shown for instance by Lacombe and Mouthereau (2002).
*Beaudoin et al., 2012 not cited in text (see annotated ms)
*L285 : cannot understand the logic here. What is the MAXIMUM vertical stress ?
Tectonic burial would possibly lead to an increase in vertical stress and on the contrary erosion would expectedly lower this vertical stress. So what is the reader supposed to understand and explain the switch between s2 and s3 stress axes ?
*Overall, I find that the authors have a purely Alpine vision of what happened in the present-day so-called ‘Alpine foreland’. Eventhough I may only partly agree with that, I have no problem with their preference for the interpretation of the Eocene ages since they now discuss more fairly alternative explanations (Eocene N-S ‘pyrenean’ compression). However, for an obscure reason, they do not want to really include the Oligocene extension in their tectonic evolution.
Let me remind my earlier comment on this point :
Like the ‘pyrenean’ compression, the Oligocene extension related to ECRIS has been described in the Jura (Lacombe et al, C. R. Acad Sc Paris, 1993; Homberg et al., 2002) but is properly ignored in the evolutionary model proposed by the authors. Of course, if the authors have not sampled any normal fault, they could not date them. But this event should be considered in the regional tectonic evolution of figure 5, which should not report only ‘dated’ tectonic phases at the risk of misleading readers unfamiliar with regional geology.
The answer given by the authors : ‘We thank the reviewer for this comment. However, we prefer not to add an additional panel to Fig. 5 related to the minor extensional phase that occurred in the Jura area’ is not acceptable. It is not scientifically sound and it simply brushes aside the findings by Lacombe and Angelier, Comptes Rendus Acad Sciences, 1993, Homberg et al Tectonophysics 2002 as well as those of Raddaideh and Mosar 2021 Tectonics paper which has been published in the meantime and which put emphasis on this extensional phase.
If the authors do want to link the Oligocene extension to their purely Alpine view of the Jura, I would suggest that they refer to the Merle and Michon 2001 BSGF paper for a possible model relating Oligocene extension to the coeval onset of Alpine collision. But I urge the authors to modify their sketches to fully account for this important event the structural inheritance of which strongly influenced subsequent contractional evolution.
*The sections of the present figure 8 (formerly 5) are also to me problematic in that the Alpine kinematics has changed through time, especially around 35 Ma (see for instance Ford et al.; Bellahsen et al.) That means that the orientation of the section should change accordingly to reflect the changing transport / shortening direction through time. This point is not discussed at all and the sections still lack proper orientation.
Note that these comments are in line with the unsufficient tectonic background also reported by the other reviewer.
*Other comments can be found in the annotated manuscript.
I think that if these issues are fixed, and the figures and text adequately modified, the manuscript will be ready for publication. I confirm my feeling that the manuscript will be an important and useful milestone in the understanding of the evolution of the Jura Mountains, and more generally of the Alpine foreland for which I congratulate the authors.