Testing the effects of topography, geometry, and kinematics on modeled thermochronometer cooling ages in the eastern Bhutan Himalaya

Gilmore, Michelle E.; McQuarrie, Nadine; Eizenhöfer, Paul R.; Ehlers, Todd A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/se-9-599-2018

Articles | Volume 9, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-9-599-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-9-599-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 9, issue 3

Research article

|

08 May 2018

Research article |

| 08 May 2018

Testing the effects of topography, geometry, and kinematics on modeled thermochronometer cooling ages in the eastern Bhutan Himalaya

Michelle E. Gilmore, Nadine McQuarrie, Paul R. Eizenhöfer, and Todd A. Ehlers

Download

Final revised paper (published on 08 May 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Oct 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Gilmore et al.: Testing the effects of topography, geometry and kinematics on modeled thermochronometer cooling ages in the eastern Bhutan Himalaya', Peter van der Beek, 19 Dec 2017
- AC1: 'Author Response to SE-2017-117-RC1 (P.A. van der Beek, 2017)', Nadine McQuarrie, 11 Feb 2018
RC2: 'Review of the manuscript entitled “Testing the effects of topography, geometry and kinematics on modeled thermochronometer cooling ages in the eastern Bhutan Himalaya” by Gilmore et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Jan 2018
- AC2: 'Author Response to SE-2017-117-RC2 (Anonymous Referee #2, 2018)', Nadine McQuarrie, 11 Feb 2018
RC3: 'Comments to the authors', Djordje Grujic, 11 Jan 2018
- AC3: 'Author Response to SE-2017-117-RC3 (D. Grujic, 2018)', Nadine McQuarrie, 11 Feb 2018
- AC5: 'Author Response to SE-2017-117-RC1,2,3 (supplemental files)', Nadine McQuarrie, 11 Feb 2018
AC4: 'Author Response to SE-2017-117-RC1 (Manuscript files)', Nadine McQuarrie, 11 Feb 2018

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Nadine McQuarrie on behalf of the Authors (20 Feb 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Feb 2018) by Federico Rossetti

RR by Peter van der Beek (03 Apr 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This revised version of the manuscript by Gilmore et al. addresses the comments expressed by myself and other reviewers in a mostly quite satisfactory manner and has become much easier to read and follow than the initial discussion paper. I had two major comments on the initial version of this manuscript, concerning (1) the context of the study and (2) the history of shortening rates. The context is now clearly laid out and I have no further queries on that. I am still not completely convinced that the inferred history of shortening and shortening rates is the only one allowable by the data, but this should not stand in the way of publication of this manuscript. This methodology is clearly still being developed, and therefore it is logical that some of the results remain slightly equivocal at this stage.

So overall I think this manuscript is pretty much ready to go. I have a few minor specific comments, indicated below by page/line number. It could do with a final critical editorial read-through as well, as there are still some minor glitches in the English.

p. 2/l. 7: This is not quite what Erdös et al. (2014) did. Instead, they argued that, since some (admittedly disputable) paleo-elevation estimates argue for similar elevations of the Pyrenees to the present since Eocene times, they could use steady-state topography in their models. They then added a transient fill of the valley bottoms in some of their models, but this only affected the post-orogenic phase (see Fillon and van der Beek, Basin Res. 2012 for a detailed description of what was done and why).

p. 2/l. 11: Valla, 2010 should be Valla et al., 2010.

p. 2/l. 17-18 “We do this by … in the Bhutan Himalaya”: this phrase is incomplete and unclear – adjacent to what?

p. 3/l. 21-24: I suppose this was added to discuss the comment that the Move restorations cannot model ductile deformation. This is indeed an issue that needs to be discussed, but I am not sure that the point made here is very clear.

p. 6/l. 24: Jordan & Watts, 2005 is not (yet) in the reference list.

p. 6/l. 25-28: Similarly, this was added to justify the choice of EET values, which appear higher than those inferred from flexure/gravity studies in the eastern Himalaya (as acknowledged in the previous phrase). However, I am not sure I understand the justification; it is not clear how the timescale come into the argument? One could clearly argue that the geophysical studies really only constrain the modern EET and not what it could have been in the past, which should in theory be possible to constrain with the kinematic-flexural modelling performed here. However, this should still end up with the same modern-day EET.

P 13/l. 13: this choice of (relatively high) surface heat-production value does not follow logically from the preceding section (which concluded that relatively low values predicted the thermochronology data better) and should therefore be justified here.

p. 19/l. 26: shouldn’t this be “farther to the foreland” instead of “hinterland”?

p. 19/l. 31-32: how does the EET “control the location of rocks with respect to the mantle”? This is unclear and somewhat mysterious to me.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (03 Apr 2018) by Federico Rossetti

AR by Nadine McQuarrie on behalf of the Authors (10 Apr 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (13 Apr 2018) by Federico Rossetti

ED: Publish as is (13 Apr 2018) by Federico Rossetti (Executive editor)

AR by Nadine McQuarrie on behalf of the Authors (16 Apr 2018)

Short summary

We examine the Himalayan Mountains of Bhutan by integrating balanced geologic cross sections with cooling ages from a suite of mineral systems. Interpretations of cooling ages are intrinsically linked to both the motion along faults as well as the location and magnitude of erosion. In this study, we use flexural and thermal kinematic models to understand the sensitivity of predicted cooling ages to changes in fault kinematics, geometry, and topography.