Bridging the Gap between Long–Term Orogenic Evolution (>10 Ma Scale) and Geomorphological Processes That Shape the Western Alps: Insights from Combined Dating Approaches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The presented manuscript proposes a review of relative, sometimes quantified, roles of tectonic and erosion in the recent evolution of the Western Alps. The authors propose an attempt to reconcile our concepts on long-term orogenic processes and short-term, up to present-day, geomorphological evolution of this mountain belt. Such a goal is of paramount importance for a better understanding of the relationships between deformation, exhumation, erosion and relief evolution in mountain belts.

 

The main strength of this type of investigation is to highlight the factors that control the potential variations in the velocities of tectonic and erosion processes through time once the continental collision chain is built. Consequently, the presented work will be of broad interest to the scientific community working on orogeny. The premise of the study is commendable and the proposed data review is of high quality.

 

The manuscript organization proposed by the authors is coherent, the considered methods are well presented and the data are distinctly separated from the interpretations. This is a nice piece of well-written work that deserves to be published.

 

From a purely formal point of view, minor comments are hereafter proposed:

 

- Line 56: The terminology “ slow tectonic region” should be replaced by “weakly deformed region”.

 

- Line 84: Tricart et al., 2001 is missing in the references list.

 

- In the presented PDF, Figure 1 is incomplete and without legend.

 

- The legend of Figure 5 should be amended : In the External Crystalline Massifs, the terminology «  Prevariscan basement » is totally inadequate.

 

Author Response

Reply to reviewers:

Rev. 1:

The presented manuscript proposes a review of relative, sometimes quantified, roles of tectonic and erosion in the recent evolution of the Western Alps. The authors propose an attempt to reconcile our concepts on long-term orogenic processes and short-term, up to present-day, geomorphological evolution of this mountain belt. Such a goal is of paramount importance for a better understanding of the relationships between deformation, exhumation, erosion and relief evolution in mountain belts.

The main strength of this type of investigation is to highlight the factors that control the potential variations in the velocities of tectonic and erosion processes through time once the continental collision chain is built. Consequently, the presented work will be of broad interest to the scientific community working on orogeny. The premise of the study is commendable and the proposed data review is of high quality.

 The manuscript organization proposed by the authors is coherent, the considered methods are well presented and the data are distinctly separated from the interpretations. This is a nice piece of well-written work that deserves to be published.

 Thanks a lot to Rev. 1 for his positive feedback!

 

From a purely formal point of view, minor comments are hereafter proposed:

- Line 56: The terminology “ slow tectonic region” should be replaced by “weakly deformed region”.

  OK, done.

- Line 84: Tricart et al., 2001 is missing in the references list.

 OK, done.

- In the presented PDF, Figure 1 is incomplete and without legend.

 OK, problem of conversion, this has been corrected!

- The legend of Figure 5 should be amended : In the External Crystalline Massifs, the terminology «  Prevariscan basement » is totally inadequate.

OK, totally right, this has been corrected!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

You can find my suggestions and corrections in attached PDF.

With regards,

reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to reviewers:

Rev. 2

Many thanks to Rev. 2 for his thorough reading and correction propositions. We corrected the text accordingly, or replied to some points when necessary.

 

L65 : “1 mm/yr is just some very general value and for sure is not valid for the most structure of the Alps. The fault zones have own dynamics which could be supported with this 1 mm/yr (or uplift???) only in the largest zones. »

Yes, we agree that is why we say that tectonic motions are slow and lower than 1mm/yr

 

L90. ka - Ka? kiloyears? But if so, why you did not use Ma, then Myrs? For 10**6 scale.

Yes, changed to kyrs.

 

L96. Apulian Plate (not plate).

OK.

 

Fig. 1 “Something is wrong with this figure. Some elements are missing, maybe because of import. Legend for sure must be inside. » Yes, problem of conversion, this has been chhecked in the final version.

Figure must be enlarged, especially E and F.

OK, done.

 

L226. Western Alpine probably, because there is several Alp's forelands around entire Alps.

OK, yes, corrected.

 

L231. B. In fact, it is more often called "the Po Depression".

OK

 

L232. I can recommend for the Po Depression find some basic geological data both for Italian and Croatian part in special issue of Journal of Petroleum Geology

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/17475457/2015/38/3

particularly in papers no. 1 and 2 (introduction is not counted).

 

OK, these works have been integrated (paper 1 as it deals with the Po basin related to the present paper).

 

L315. “This could or could not be. I am not sure.

 

If significantly lower Dinarides (Alpine Superbelt is wide sense) the glacials left significant sediment marks

 

https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/rgn/article/view/5204

 

However, no significant rivers could be developed (small drainage area) and caused large erosion, so uplifting prevailed until today.”

 

We have clarified the text to explain that this is essentially in rivers without the influence of glaciers, in low elevation zones were glaciers were not present. We put a new reference here to an article in press in “Geomorphology” journal highlighting this point.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx