The Franconian Alb east, south, and north of the city of Nuremberg (Fig. 1) is well known for its impressive exposures of Jurassic carbonates and reef structures in an area extending for ∼120 km east–west and ∼160 km north–south. The area is partly underlain by older structures such as the SW–NE-trending Carboniferous–Permian Kraichgau Basin (Lützner and Kowalczyk, 2012) and the upper Permian–Triassic Franconian Basin as part of the Germanic Basin (Freudenberger et al., 2013). Following dominantly terrestrial deposition during the Upper Triassic Keuper, marine environments returned during the Early Jurassic (Liassic), when the southern Germanic Basin was flooded, depositing mostly clays and clayey marls (Fig. 2) (Piénkowski et al., 2008). Alternating dark clays and oolitic ironstones then record the Middle Jurassic (Dogger) (Piénkowski et al., 2008). With progressive shallowing of the epicontinental sea during the Late Jurassic (Malm), massive limestone and marlstone units, including siliceous sponge–microbial reefs and oolite platforms, formed (Koch and Munnecke, 2016; Meyer and Schmidt-Kaler, 1990; Piénkowski et al., 2008).

The Early Cretaceous was characterized by uplift contemporaneous with an overall marine regression, leading to pronounced erosion and karstification of the Franconian Alb Jurassic under tropical to subtropical climates (Schröder, 1968; Voigt et al., 2007). Uplift of the Bohemian Massif likely amounted up to ∼1–1.5 km (Peterek et al., 1996; Peterek and Schröder, 2010; Reicherter et al., 2008; Schröder, 1987; Wagner et al., 1997), probably related to far-field compression (Scheck-Wenderoth et al., 2008) and a wrench-dominated tectonic regime at the southern end of the North Sea rift system (Pharaoh et al., 2010). The uplifted basement areas of the Bohemian Massif and their eroded sedimentary cover sourced the coarse clastic–terrestrial Schutzfeldschichten (Lower Cretaceous), which likely covered the entire Franconian Alb (Freudenberger and Schwerd, 1996). Only in the course of several major northward marine transgressions during the Upper Cretaceous did the Franconian Alb area become flooded and successively buried by a thick pile of mixed siliciclastic and calcareous sediments. The initial collision between the African and the European plate during the Late Cretaceous then led to widespread inversion tectonics (Kley and Voigt, 2008; Scheck-Wenderoth et al., 2008; Voigt et al., 2008, 2021), resulting in basement uplift, the reactivation of faults such as the Franconian Line (Scheck-Wenderoth et al., 2008; Ziegler, 1989) (Fig. 1), and the removal of the majority of Cretaceous sediments (Schröder, 1987). A likely second major uplift phase was induced by the Alpine continental collision between the latest Late Cretaceous and Paleocene (Peterek et al., 1997; Reicherter et al., 2008; Schröder, 1987; Wagner et al., 1997; Ziegler, 1987). This, together with mantle-induced (upwelling asthenosphere) domal uplift below the Upper Rhine Graben Rift to the west of the Franconian Alb area (Fig. 1), caused southward tilting of the Mesozoic strata (von Eynatten et al., 2021). Subsequent and tilting-related differential erosion in turn resulted in the characteristic scarpland morphology (Schröder, 1968), leaving only local erosional remnants and residual weathering products (e.g., Kallmünz boulders, Alblehm) witnessing former Cretaceous overburden (Glaser et al., 2001; Schirmer, 2015).

Following long-lasting denudation, Cenozoic subsidence of the North Alpine Foreland Basin towards the south, contemporaneous with ongoing uplift of basement areas towards the east, led to erosional retreat of incised valleys that accommodated fluvial clastics during periods of base-level rise in the southern Franconian Alb area (Jin et al., 1995; Meyer, 1996; Zweigel et al., 1998). Nevertheless, the post-Jurassic burial history of the Franconian Alb area is rather uncertain, as only a few remnants of Cretaceous and Cenozoic sediments are preserved locally (Dill, 1995; Peterek et al., 1997; Peterek and Schröder, 2010).

Rather complete records of Cretaceous and Cenozoic sediments are only available within and below the central and eastern parts of the Cenozoic North Alpine Foreland Basin (Fig. 1; NAFB) in SE Germany and upper Austria. There, seismic- and borehole-data-based thicknesses of up to 900 m (Przybycin et al., 2015) or even up to 1000 m of Cretaceous (Meyer, 1996) and up to 5000 m of Cenozoic sediments are reported (Bachmann and Müller, 1992). Cenomanian to Campanian sediments are also preserved in the subsurface of the Braunau–Regensburg (BRB) and the Wasserburg basins (WB) (Fig. 3), which were both incorporated in the North Alpine Foreland Basin during the Alpine Orogeny and crop out only in the area of Regensburg (Voigt et al., 2008). Low-temperature thermochronology points to a good compliance between Late Cretaceous sediments at the marginal parts to the south of the Bohemian Massif, accompanied by continued uplift of the Variscan basement to the north, and subsequent exhumation and partial sediment removal since the Late Cretaceous and early Paleogene (Vamvaka et al., 2014). The Franconian Alb area directly north of the North Alpine Foreland Basin, however, had a different post-Jurassic and in particular post-Cretaceous burial history with the line Ingolstadt–Regensburg (Fig. 1) roughly dividing areas of Cenozoic subsidence versus non-subsidence and/or uplift. Towards the north, remnants of Cretaceous strata are only present on the eastern flank of the Franconian Alb close to distinct structural features such as the Danube Fault (DF), the Pfahl Fault (PF), and particularly the Franconian Line (Fig. 1) (Meyer, 1996; Schröder, 1987; Schröder et al., 1997), which are prominent NW–SE-striking, steeply NE-dipping upthrust faults that were repeatedly reactivated since the Permo-Triassic and superimposed basement rocks onto the Permo-Mesozoic sediment cover (Schröder, 1987; Zulauf, 1993). Nevertheless, the areal extent of sediment overburden since the Cretaceous still remains unclear (Eberle et al., 2017; Niebuhr et al., 2009), and only a few studies (Peterek and Schröder, 2010; Schröder, 1970, 1987) considered the burial history of the Franconian Alb and the original thicknesses of post-Jurassic sediments.

Based on geological field observations, Schröder (1970, 1987) estimated an original thickness of >300 m of Cretaceous sediments in the Franconian Alb area, a value which was later confirmed by Meyer (1996) and Peterek and Schröder (2010) based on paleogeographic considerations. From other published data a rough picture emerges of a Cretaceous sediment cover decreasing from ∼1–2 km (Hejl et al., 1997; Schröder, 1987) directly in front of the Franconian Line down to about 200–400 m farther west (Meyer, 1996; Niebuhr et al., 2009; Peterek and Schröder, 2010; Schröder, 1970; Voigt et al., 2008), eventually leading to total pinch-out towards the west to southwest (Peterek and Schröder, 2010). Hejl et al. (1997) used apatite fission-track (AFT) analysis to determine the low-temperature history of ortho- and paragneiss boulders that are situated to the east of the Franconian Alb, close to the Franconian Line. They infer a burial of up to 2000 m for Upper Cretaceous clastics in the proximal southwestern vicinity of the Franconian Line. Another more comprehensive AFT and (U-Th)/He analysis-based thermochronological study by von Eynatten et al. (2021) on the exhumation history of central Germany, including the Franconian Platform, points to large areas of Late Cretaceous to Paleocene domal uplift that experienced removal of 3–4 km of Mesozoic strata. In contrast, average vitrinite reflectance data for 0.7 %–0.8 % for lower Keuper (Ladinian) sediments just west of the northern Franconian Alb area constrain a much lower burial depth of 1.4 km (Bachmann et al., 2002). Subtracting reported regional middle–upper Keuper and Jurassic sediment thicknesses of 900 m in the southern and 1400 m in the northern Franconian Alb area (Freudenberger and Schwerd, 1996) would suggest that no or only a <500 m thick post-Jurassic sediment cover existed. As all of these studies did not quantify the maximum post-Jurassic sediment overburden, we aim to tackle this question by combining several methodological approaches that rely on independent datasets.

In this study, we combine mudstone porosity and density data from helium and mercury porosimetry with vitrinite reflectance data and mudstone velocity data from downhole sonic velocity, downhole geophone, and seismic refraction field surveys to gain independent insights on the maximum burial of the Franconian Alb. The results will be compared with and discussed in the context of previous studies (Bader, 2001; Hejl et al., 1997; Peterek and Schröder, 2010; Schröder, 1987; von Eynatten et al., 2021).

Our results shed new light on the evolution of the Franconian Alb area and the original distribution and thicknesses of Cretaceous and Cenozoic sediments in central Europe. They are also of great relevance for an improved understanding of diagenetic pathways and hydraulic properties of the Permo-Triassic clastics and Late Jurassic carbonate rocks in the Franconian Alb. The latter serve as an important outcrop analogue for the most important deep geothermal (Malm) aquifer in the North Alpine Foreland Basin (Kröner et al., 2017; Mraz et al., 2018), whose petrophysical properties are known to strongly depend on burial depth (Bohnsack et al., 2020, 2021; Homuth et al., 2014; Steiner et al., 2014). Finally, the integration of different parameters and measurement types provides an important reference dataset (Table A2) for future studies, aiming to use petrophysical properties of exhumed and near-surface located mudstones for burial history studies.

We collected Lower (Liassic) and Middle Jurassic (Dogger) claystone and mudstone samples (Fig. 2) across the Franconian Alb area along a N–S transect from Coburg to Eichstätt and from Treuchtlingen to Amberg in the east–west direction (Fig. 1). Table 1 summarizes all sample locations, sample sources, sample types, sample depth below ground, and stratigraphic positions in addition to applied methods and number of measurements per sample.

Measured and calculated values for each sample are shown in Table A1 in the Appendix. Macroscopically “pure” Jurassic claystones and mudstones (minimum sample size 10×10×10 cm) were selectively sampled at 0.5 m minimum depth (to avoid alteration and/or weathering) from nine active and closed claystone pits and from five newly drilled shallow drill cores (up to 12 m below ground level). Except for core samples from Velburg and Zankschlag all samples were packed and stored in an air-evacuated light-proof, waterproof, and air-proof aluminum barrier foil directly after extraction to preserve the best possible in situ conditions. Interval velocity data from Lias and Dogger claystones and mudstones from a shallow seismic refraction survey for low-velocity layers in the course of this study (see Fig. 1 for locations), published borehole geophone data from Buness and Bram (2001), and sonic log velocity data from a shallow wellbore (Zapfendorf) in the NW part of the study area (Welz, 1994) were also integrated.

Density and sonic log data from nine deep wells in the North Alpine Foreland Basin (Fig. 3) have been filtered for appropriate mudstone intervals using gamma-ray (mudstone cut-off at 60–120 API) and/or resistivity values (mudstone cut-off at 4–8 Ωm) as a mudstone discriminator, and log values were subsequently averaged over 150 m depth intervals. The data were used to validate the normal compaction trend (NCT) determined by Drews et al. (2018) with regard to mudstone density data.

For XRD-based whole rock mineralogical classifications, the dried mudstone samples were crushed and ground with the McCrone XRD mill and analyzed by an X-ray diffractometer D5000 (Siemens). A qualitative Rietveld analysis of the resulting signal was then done with the DIFFRAC.SUITE software EVA and thereafter semi-quantitatively with the DIFFRAC.SUITE software TOPAS 4.2 (both by Bruker).

Full disaggregation of the solid samples was achieved by applying the “saturation–freeze–thaw” method of Yang and Aplin (1997). Particle size analysis by sedimentation was done by applying a SediGraph III Plus by Micromeritics. The grain size classes are differentiated according to the geotechnical grain size classification scheme for soils (Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1987), whereby the clay fraction comprises particles <2 µm, the silt fraction particles of 2–63 µm, and sand particles are >63 µm. The grain size classification scheme follows Potter et al. (1980).

Random vitrinite reflectance in oil (VR) was determined for 11 selected samples (Table 1) using a magnification of 100× in non-polarized light at a wavelength of 546 nm (Taylor et al., 1998). Yttrium–aluminum–garnet (R=0.899 %) and gadolinium–gallium–garnet (R=1.699 %) standards were used for calibration. As the vitrinite maturation is mainly affected by temperature as well as by the duration of maximum burial (Nöth et al., 2001) and only to a minor degree by pressure (Hunt, 1979), these measurements are strongly dependent on the evolving heat flow and therefore the geothermal gradient within a sedimentary basin (Suggate, 1998). Vitrinite reflectance depth profiles therefore have to be set up for a specific region of interest. However, heat flow and resulting geothermal gradient may have changed over time, and there are variables like the respective organofacies or the individual reaction kinetics which may influence the transformation and ordering processes of vitrinites (Le Bayon et al., 2011). A VR depth trend was constructed based on published vitrinite reflectance data (Gusterhuber et al., 2012) and partly unpublished data for Cretaceous mudstones in the northern part of the NAFB in Austria, where the samples' burial depths were known to allow calibration (Fig. 3). From the correlation between the measured sample vitrinite reflectance and the VR depth trend, the burial depth of Franconian Alb claystones and mudstones was inferred. As the Mesozoic burial history of the northern part of the Upper Austrian Molasse Basin (Nachtmann and Wagner, 1987) is rather similar to the Franconian Alb area (Peterek et al., 1997; Schröder, 1987), a comparison between our samples and the developed VR depth trend is considered to be reasonable.

A total of 41 claystone and mudstone samples were analyzed in terms of their grain size classification (Fig. 4a) and 37 regarding their mineralogical composition (Fig. 4b) to ensure that we base our study on a rather homogeneous sample set in terms of grain size and mineralogical composition.

Compressional P-wave velocities of Jurassic mudstones, which have been retrieved from shallow seismic refraction surveys (see locations in Fig. 1) and sonic log data for the shallow Zapfendorf borehole (Welz, 1994) (Table 1), increase and converge towards velocities of 2000–3500 m s-1 at depths of 15 m below ground level (Fig. 5a). We infer from this that below a depth of 15 m, unloading-related processes are negligible and therefore selected only velocities from depth >15 m for further analysis.

Mudstone velocity vs. true vertical depth (TVD) plots for normally pressured Mesozoic and Cenozoic mudstones in the NAFB (Drews et al., 2018; their Fig. 4) show that mudstone compaction can be approximated by a single trend with the calculated normal compaction trend (NCT) derived from the combination of a modified Athy equation (see Eq. 1) and the porosity–velocity transform (see Eq. 2) of Raiga-Clemenceau et al. (1986). Drews et al. (2018) also determined the systematic depth-dependent velocity increase in Mesozoic and Cenozoic mudstones as a function of vertical effective stress (derived from in situ measured pressures from drill stem, production, and wire-line formation tests as well as associated mudstone velocities), well captured by the calculated NCT on a basin-wide scale (Fig. 5b).

Relating maximum mudstone velocities of 2500–3500 m s-1, measured in Jurassic mudstones of the Franconian Alb area (Fig. 5a), to the NCT established by Drews et al. (2018; their Fig. 4) suggests vertical effective stresses in the range of 10–25 MPa (Fig. 5b) and roughly equates to 700–2000 m true vertical depth.

Dry bulk densities ρb_dry and porosities ØHg were analyzed from 72 samples by Hg intrusion porosimetry, and true (skeletal) densities ρt with an average value ρt_mean of 2.73±0.06 g cm-3 (Fig. 6a) for 34 clay pit and shallow drill core samples (Table 1) were determined by He pycnometry. Mudstone porosities were also calculated (Øcalc) based on bulk densities ρb_dry and true (skeletal) densities ρt_mean (Eq. 5).

We preferred the calculated porosity values rather than Hg porosities because continued mercury intrusion even at the device's maximum injection pressure (see inset in Fig. 6b) suggested that micropores <0.003 µm were not fully involved in the measurement. The cross-plot of calculated porosities Øcalc versus measured porosities ØHg reveals major discrepancies due to the incomplete involvement of micropores by using Hg porosities (Fig. 6b). The relation between downhole mudstone velocities and bulk densities is well captured by the NCT established by Drews et al. (2018) (Fig. 7a). Figure 7b compares mudstone velocities vPcalc with vPcalc-Hg. The values reveal a positive linear relationship, but with significant diversions towards faster vPcalc-Hg values and a clustering of vPcalc values at 3000–3500 m s-1 (Fig. 7b).

As shown by the box plot summary (Fig. 8a), calculated mudstone velocities vPcalc applying Øcalc are considerably lower (average 3300 m s-1) than vPcalc-Hg applying ØHg (average 3900 m s-1) due to the incomplete involvement of micropores in ØHg-based calculations (see Figs. 6b and 7b). Calculated mudstone velocities vPcalc are higher compared to in situ measured mudstone velocities derived from seismic refraction surveys (vPseis average 2600 m s-1) and shallow sonic log data (vPlog average 2800 m s-1) from the Franconian Alb area. This is most likely method-related, as vPcalc values represent lab-based measurements on small, homogeneous sample volumes which are analyzed under controlled conditions, while in situ measured velocities refer to larger volumes and are hence probably influenced by factors such as variations in (de-)compaction, pore water saturation, weathering, and discontinuities. Hence, the main discrepancy between the applied methods results from the methods' differing sensitivity to these factors, with the in situ measured velocities being highly susceptible in contrast to the lab-based measurements.

Referencing mudstone velocities to the mudstone velocity trend of Drews et al. (2018) derived from hydrostatically pressured mudstones in the NAFB (Fig. 5b) views vP values as a function of vertical effective stress (VES). Any uplift, although reported <500 m for the mudstones in the North Alpine Foreland Basin (Baran et al., 2014), could lead to an underestimation of our burial depth estimation by the respective amount but will be neglected in our calculations as it is within the range of uncertainty. The majority of field velocity data from seismic refraction survey vPseis and shallow sonic log data vPlog (Welz, 1994) indicate a paleo-vertical effective stress in the range of 7–19 MPa (average 10 MPa for seismic refraction and 14 MPa for sonic log), while calculated velocities vPcalc and vPcalc-Hg yield higher values in the range of 13–46 MPa (average 23 MPa) and 22–90 MPa (average 36 MPa), respectively (Fig. 8b). This could be due to the scale of the measurement: while the in situ field velocity data were measured roughly on a meter scale and most likely also captured larger unloading structures due to the shallow present-day burial depth, the measured porosity data are derived from centimeter-sized samples, which most likely are not as affected by unloading, and if such effects were recognized they were removed from the analysis (see caption of Fig. 6).

Applying an average vertical effective stress gradient of 13 MPa km-1 to field velocity data of mudstones vPseis and vPlog yields a maximum burial depth for Franconian Alb area samples of 0.0–1.8 km (0.9 ± 0.4 km mean), whereas vPcalc and vPcalc-Hg yield 1.0–3.6 km (1.8 ± 0.4 km mean) versus 1.7–6.9 km (2.8 ± 0.8 km mean) burial, respectively (Table A1). A lower stress gradient, associated with a less consolidated overlying rock column, would result in elevated maximum burial depths. In the unlikely case of a higher stress gradient, reflecting an overlying rock column of much denser lithology, this would yield decreased maximum burial depth values. Therefore, the applied VES gradient of 13 MPa km-1 and resulting maximum burial depth values represent a lower bound. Hence, depth-corrected field velocity data and lab porosity data based on ØHg suggest that about 0.2–0.8 km (0.3 km mean) and 1.8–2.4 km (2.2 km mean) of post-Jurassic sediments were removed in the Franconian Alb area since deposition (Fig. 8c). Lab porosity data Øcalc, however, are considered more reliable and suggest 1.0–1.4 km (1.1 km mean) of post-Jurassic overburden.

All these values must be corrected by their actual sample burial depth. However, instead of subtracting individual corrections for the Upper Jurassic strata thickness at each sample location, an average value was removed. This is related to the fact that only remnants of Upper Jurassic limestones are preserved with up to 200 m thickness, but an unknown amount of Upper Jurassic sediments was eroded in large parts of the Franconian Alb. Hence, their original paleo-thicknesses can only be inferred from seismic data in the NAFB, where Bachmann et al. (1987) determined a general value of 0.6 km for the thickness of the Upper Jurassic Malm unit. This thickness was thus removed from the calculated burial depth values.

Furthermore, no samples were corrected for their distances to the Middle Jurassic–Upper Jurassic interface at each location. As the Upper Jurassic limestones are missing at most sample locations, so is the knowledge of the actual distance to the Middle Jurassic–Upper Jurassic interface. Estimates for the former position of this interface in the Franconian Alb area were only done by von Freyberg (1969). As the majority of the investigated samples are of Middle Jurassic age, only interpolated values based on a georeferenced map from von Freyberg (1969) are available for the sample locations. Because of the thicknesses of Middle Jurassic sediments of 20–170 m or even less (Meyer and Schmidt-Kaler, 1996), we consider the neglect of these sediments to lie within the uncertainty range and did not include them in the calculation of the removed sediment columns in Fig. 8c. A summary of burial depth and amount of removed sediment calculated at each sample location, based on a variety of different input parameters, is given in Table A1.

Vitrinite reflectance values of Upper Triassic to Middle Jurassic mudstone samples from the Franconian Alb vary between 0.32 % Ro and 0.61 % Ro with a mean of 0.49 % Ro and a correlation coefficient of R2=0.76 with true vertical depth (TVD) (Fig. 9). As no information on the paleo-heat flow in this region is available, no vitrinite reflectance evolution with depth could be modeled for the study area. However, a comparable VR depth trend is derived from published (Sachsenhofer, 2001) and unpublished (R. F. Sachsenhofer, written communication, 2021) vitrinite reflectance data for Upper Triassic to Middle Jurassic mudstones from the northern part of the NAFB in Austria (Fig. 3). Our results can be related to these, as they presumably have a similar thermal history. Samples from the Austrian part of the NAFB show vitrinite reflectances of 0.3 % Ro–0.6 % Ro developed at sampling depths of ∼800–2200 m (Fig. 9). Applying this VR depth trend to Franconian Alb VR data reveals a similar paleo-burial depth range of 800–2200 m for the Franconian Alb area samples. Hence, applying VR data, our Lower Jurassic Franconian Alb samples probably experienced a maximum burial depth average of ∼1650 m, and, considering ∼600 m thickness for Upper Jurassic sediments, a removed post-Jurassic sediment column of ∼1050 m is calculated.

Our burial depth calculations for the Early to Middle Jurassic mudstones of the Franconian Alb area suggest a burial depth of at least 900 m, based on downhole and shallow seismic refraction mudstone velocities, but rather ∼1700 m as inferred from calculated porosities Øcalc and VR data as any unloading and drying effects can be ruled out in these datasets (Fig. 10). A strong overestimation of maximum burial depths derived from ØHg porosity values is displayed in Fig. 10c but has low reliability due to the incomplete micropore involvement (Fig. 6b). As the thicknesses of Early Jurassic strata (∼20 m in the southern and ∼100 m in the northern Franconian Alb), Middle Jurassic strata (∼150 m: Meyer and Schmidt-Kaler, 1996), and Late Jurassic sediments (∼600 m in the neighboring NAFB: Bachmann et al., 1987) are roughly known, cumulative Jurassic sediment thicknesses are subtracted from maximum burial depth to get values for removed post-Jurassic (Cretaceous plus Cenozoic) sediment thicknesses. The maximum overburden results for each location in the Franconian Alb area and each calculation method are listed in Table A1.

Our vitrinite reflectance data (Fig. 10a and d), indicating burial depths of 0.8–2.2 km (mean 1.7 km), correlate very well with burial depth of ∼1.7 km inferred from calculated porosities Øcalc applying He-pycnometry-derived mean true densities ρt_mean and bulk densities ρb (Fig. 10b) (see Table A1).

West of the Franconian Line, AFT data (Hejl et al., 1997) as well as field-mapping- and literature-based interpretations (sedimentological studies, thermochronological data, radiometric age data, etc.) suggest deposition and subsequent removal of >1000 m of Cretaceous and Cenozoic sediments (Peterek and Schröder, 2010; Schröder, 1987; Schröder et al., 1997), of which only ca. 320 m of Upper Cretaceous strata is preserved (Dill, 1995). Hence, compared to the more distal western parts of the Franconian Alb, strongly increased depositional thicknesses along the front of the Franconian Line can be considered due to the uplift and major exhumation of the Bohemian Massif to the east, combined with westward thrusting and syntectonic deposition of the eroded material (Meyer, 1996; Peterek and Schröder, 2010).

Results of the AFT and (U-Th)/He analysis of von Eynatten et al. (2021), on the other hand, suggest burial depths of 3.0–4.0 km for exposed Triassic sedimentary rocks in large parts of central Germany, including the Franconian Alb. Applying these values, about 0.9 km of Jurassic and 2.1–3.1 km of Cretaceous–Cenozoic sediments would have been removed, which exceeds our estimations for removed Cretaceous–Cenozoic sediments (deduced from both the calculated porosities Øcalc and the VR data) by ∼1.1 km. This discrepancy can be explained either by the fact that von Eynatten's Franconian Platform sample locations, ca. 20 km to the north of our study area, experienced a different subsidence and/or burial history or by the applied geothermal gradient which von Eynatten et al. (2021) estimated at only 30 ∘C km-1. This gradient contrasts with an elevated regional geothermal gradient of 38 ∘C km-1 determined by de Wall et al. (2019) in the vicinity of the Franconian Alb close to Mistelgau. Elevated geothermal gradients of >40 ∘C km-1 are also observed in the area around Mürsbach (Bauer, 2000; Kämmlein et al., 2020). If the increased geothermal gradient also applies to the area investigated by von Eynatten et al. (2021), significantly lower burial depths would result in their calculations. However, the elevated geothermal anomaly is rather focused in an area ca. 20 km north of Bamberg (Fig. 1) and quickly diminishes towards the south and east, where the gradient varies between 25 and 31–37 ∘C km-1 according to Bauer (2000) and a typical regional heat flow of 65–85 mW m-2 prevails (Čermák and Bodri, 1991). Von Eynatten et al. (2021) also state that the magnitudes of exhumation and erosion are remarkably reduced towards the eastern Franconian Alb margin. We therefore think that our estimates of removed post-Jurassic sediments for the Franconian Alb area are more realistic and do not contradict but rather support and complement the results of von Eynatten et al. (2021). Bachmann et al. (2002) argue that no Cretaceous sediments were deposited in the western part of the Franconian Alb area. This conclusion can most likely be related to the more distal-to-source position of their study area, positioned between Tübingen and Würzburg, compared to ours (Franconian Alb area). As Cretaceous sediments in the Franconian Alb area were most likely sourced from the Bohemian Massif towards the east (Niebuhr et al., 2011, 2012; Schröder, 1987; Schröder et al., 1997; Voigt et al., 2008), a reduced sediment supply to positions more distal to the source can be expected. Westward decreasing Cretaceous sediment columns, as proposed by Meyer (1996) and Peterek and Schröder (2010), support this interpretation.

The lateral variation of calculated burial depths derived from two independent datasets (Fig. 10a–d) shows no regional trends or noticeable areas of increased or reduced burial depth. Only in the case of the porosity-derived burial depth estimations (Fig. 10b) can a trend towards increased amounts of post-Lower Jurassic paleo-thickness in the northwestern part of the Franconian Alb be conjectured, though this impression is based on sparse data density in the area of interest.

Additional information comes from published AFT and measured VR data. From the VR results, no distinct differential vertical movements between various parts of the Franconian Alb can be inferred. According to von Eynatten et al. (2021), however, AFT and (U-Th)/He data indicate that Triassic sediments were less deeply buried next to the Bohemian Massif boundary in the east (≪3–4 km) compared to the central part of their study area (3–4 km), situated close to the Franconian Line. The discrepancy with our results (∼1 km) can be explained by the doming model of von Eynatten et al. (2021), as their analyzed Franconian Platform sample set was taken closer to the doming center, which is located further to the north of our study area. Hence, our study area was most likely less affected by doming-related processes. The AFT results of Hejl et al. (1997) and the sedimentological observations of Schröder (1987) and Peterek and Schröder (2010) additionally suggest that higher sediment thicknesses (∼2 km) were deposited directly west of the Franconian Line compared to the more distal-to-source parts. The more distal-to-source locations of the majority of our samples most likely explain these reduced burial depths. Reasons for reduced sediment removal in the southwestern part of the study area are given by Peterek and Schröder (2010). They suggest temporarily reduced erosion rates in this area due to the coverage by Neogene lake sediments that protected underlying Mesozoic sediments from erosion.

Information on the timing of sediment deposition and removal in the study area could not be inferred from our data, but this issue has been investigated by various authors (Peterek and Schröder, 2010; Schröder, 1987; Schröder et al., 1997; Ziegler, 1987). Early Cretaceous sediments (Late Valanginian to Barremian) constitute, if at all, only minor to negligible ratios of the original sediment column and were most likely already removed during the Late Valanginian to Cenomanian erosional event (Schröder, 1987). Sedimentation resumed during the Cenomanian–Turonian to Campanian (Ziegler, 1987; Meyer, 1981, 1989a, b), and related deposits must have constituted the majority of the eroded sediments, as sedimentation in most parts of the study area ceased thereafter (Peterek and Schröder, 2010). This termination in sedimentation was superseded by the profound erosion of Cretaceous sediments, caused by the latest Cretaceous to Paleocene inversion (Schröder, 1987; Schröder et al., 1997). Uplift associated with thermal doming of the Bohemian Massif probably continued after the Miocene, resulting in the absence of widespread sediment cover in the study area (Peterek and Schröder, 2010; Schröder, 1987; Schröder et al., 1997).

In summary, our data suggest that considerable amounts of post-Jurassic sediments must have been removed from the investigated area. Having information on the paleo-stress conditions during burial of now surface-exposed sedimentary rocks is key for relating their petrophysical properties to their deeply buried analogues. Our results indicate that the Upper Jurassic “Malm” carbonates, which are exposed in the Franconian Alb area and plunge southwards to depths of up to 5500 m in the Alpine foreland (Bachmann et al., 1987), constitute suitable analogues for reservoirs drilled at equivalent burial depths of ∼1050 m in the NAFB. This would directly apply to the geothermally productive Malm reservoirs in the proximal north of Munich and in the Moosburg–Landshut area (Fig. 3).