Applications of Forward Stratigraphic Modelling in Modern Siliciclastic Settings: A Case Study from the Fraser River Delta, Canada

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well structured and written in good scientific language. The introduction reflects the main idea of ​​a future article. Methods adequately describe the main principles of the study. Results and Discussion fully reveal the main findings of the research. The author demonstrate a great knowledge of the subject, the study results are comprehensively presented and structured. The impressive list of references indicates a deep immersion into the study topic and fully reflects the current state of the study subject.

In the reviewer’s opinion the manuscript may be published after a thorough check of references and text design according to the journal requirements.

Author Response

• In the reviewer’s opinion the manuscript may be published after a thorough check of references and text design according to the journal requirements.

Thank you for your comment. I have carefully revised my entire reference list. I now use EndNote and I specifically downloaded Applied Sciences’ s format.

Reviewer 2 Report

The theme developed is very stimulating, the application of the Dionisos software provides interesting information on the Holocene evolution of the submerged delta (10 ky BP-Present).

But the paper could be improved by the inclusion of a geological-geomorphological settin and, if you have them, seismic sections that show the depositional style of this delta.

Author Response

• But the paper could be improved by the inclusion of a geological-geomorphological settin and, if you have them, seismic sections that show the depositional style of this delta.

I agree that a seismic section would be great for my work; however, I do not have access to that data. The geological setting is now revised accordingly. Thank you for your comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has conducted a research for creating stratigraphic models for Fraser River Delta. The research is interesting and my main concerns are the structure of the sections and the lack of justifications as follows:

1. The abstract should be rewritten as it includes unnecessary wordiness from the Introduction and other sections. It doesn’t provide any information on the research methods and findings. Start the abstract with the problem or central argument of the manuscript, followed by aim, methods and results.
2. The first person pronouns such as “I” should be avoided in scientific paper. Instead of “I simulated” refer as, “it is simulated” or “the evolution is simulated...”
3. The Materials and methods section should include a clear and brief description of the research procedures. In the second section Material and Methods, none of the methods is mentioned. Moreover, this chapter is just a brief description of Fraser River Delta according to literature review.
4. In third section, the proposed coefficient values in Table 1 should be explained as also the parameters in second table. It is only stated that they are “tested and adopted from other studies” without any justifications.
5. More critically, the author should clarify and provide sedimentary data used for modeling. When conducting such research geological investigations are necessary, including boreholes data. The exact data on recent and ancient sedimentary rates and lithology may be obtained only by stratigraphic investigations of sediments deposited in Fraser Delta. Geological column showing the thickness and lithology of sediments and table of depositional environments are advisable.
6. Establishing a reliable chronological framework by using luminescence and radiocarbon dating techniques for sediments is crucial to the reconstruction of evolution process of delta and the study of paleoenvironmental history. Thus, it is not clear how the author dated the sediments and made paleoenvironmental reconstructions in subsections 4.1 and 4.2.

In summary, although I have included a demanding list of questions, I believe that the author should be able to address these appropriately with modifications to the text.

Author Response

• The abstract should be rewritten as it includes unnecessary wordiness from the Introduction and other sections. It doesn’t provide any information on the research methods and findings. Start the abstract with the problem or central argument of the manuscript, followed by aim, methods and results.

Done. I have revised the abstract by removing repetitions from the introduction section and adding more method and results. Thank you, this is a good point.

• The first person pronouns such as “I” should be avoided in scientific paper. Instead of “I simulated” refer as, “it is simulated” or “the evolution is simulated...”

Done. The entire text is revised accordingly.

• The Materials and methods section should include a clear and brief description of the research procedures. In the second section Material and Methods, none of the methods is mentioned. Moreover, this chapter is just a brief description of Fraser River Delta according to literature review.

I understand your point. I would like to clarify that the input parameters for the forward stratigraphic modelling require an extensive amount of data. Therefore, published data sets have been used in my study as the basis of the main input parameters. The “data set and methodology” section shows how I created my model and how I used these different data sets in various parameters. I have now changed the title of the “first section” to “study area” to clarify.

• In third section, the proposed coefficient values in Table 1 should be explained as also the parameters in second table. It is only stated that they are “tested and adopted from other studies” without any justifications.

Table 2 is now explained clearly in the revised version of the manuscript. Diffusion coefficients (Table 1) are mainly derived and calculated using flume tank experiments in the literature, and many published studies adapt these values or similar basin-values from the literature. In my model, I tested several diffusion coefficients, published in the literature, and deposited in forearc basins. I now make this point clear in the revised manuscript. This was also a good point, thank you for bringing it up to my attention.

• More critically, the author should clarify and provide sedimentary data used for modeling. When conducting such research geological investigations are necessary, including boreholes data. The exact data on recent and ancient sedimentary rates and lithology may be obtained only by stratigraphic investigations of sediments deposited in Fraser Delta. Geological column showing the thickness and lithology of sediments and table of depositional environments are advisable.

We agree that sedimentological data is important; however, it is beyond the focus of this manuscript and that data has already been published. I have used and cited published data (please also see comment #5).

• Establishing a reliable chronological framework by using luminescence and radiocarbon dating techniques for sediments is crucial to the reconstruction of evolution process of delta and the study of paleoenvironmental history. Thus, it is not clear how the author dated the sediments and made paleoenvironmental reconstructions in subsections 4.1 and 4.2.

Chronological analysis has been documented in the literature, particularly by Clague et. al. (1983). I agree that I should have made this point clear in the methodology section. I have now added a statement regarding how the delta evolution has been constructed (using terrestrial organic matter distribution, radiocarbon age dating, and marine shell distributions in boreholes).

Thank you for your comments

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has addressed all the comments and concerns raised. The revision has significantly improved the manuscript. I have no additional comments. Overall, the manuscript is now well written and the reported results are of interests to readers.