The Imprint of Recent Meteorological Events on Boulder Deposits along the Mediterranean Rocky Coasts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The movement of boulders is typically infrequent (decreasing with mass). Many boulders will not move over many storms of a similar profile and intensity, yet may move during any one of them. Very few move in a any event. Furthermore, identifying any one particular wave inducing movement is difficult. Movement is a local phenomena. How can you isolate the onshore infrequent local movement from the global meteorological event?

Are there links to be made with how connections are made between meteorological events and other physical erosion, such as hurricanes and flood damage? Can you make use of established tools and methods already out there to bring the collaboration of scientific disciplines forward?

 

Minor comments:

line 37: too many brackets

line 77: wave --> waves (or other rephrasing)

line 216: close bracket

line 385: addressed --> address

line 412: 21th --> 21st

line 429: repetition of "the"

line 361: "is not be", reword

line 131: et alii  --> et al

line 135: et alii  --> et al (twice)

line 458: et alii  --> et al

line 478: et alii  --> et al

line 480: et alii  --> et al

Table 1 and Table A1: et alii  --> et al

Author Response

The movement of boulders is typically infrequent (decreasing with mass). Many boulders will not move over many storms of a similar profile and intensity, yet may move during any one of them. Very few move in a any event. Furthermore, identifying any one particular wave inducing movement is difficult. Movement is a local phenomena. How can you isolate the onshore infrequent local movement from the global meteorological event?

Reply: Climate proxy records, and especially the ones belonging to the sedimentary-geological category, are intrinsically incomplete. As regards CBDs, very clear is the following statement: “the impacts of storms have also been studied in high-energy environments using boulder deposits (e.g. Cox et al. 2018), but the reconstruction of long-term records is complicated by difficulties in dating deposits and separating individual events from large-scale boulder fields” (Engelhart et al. (2019), listed as [23] in References). However, in the manuscript there are some sentences regarding the more promising methods used for the paleo-deposits (lines 452-460, first version; lines 490-498, revised version). Geomorphological monitoring methods allow to easily identify boulder movement due to present and incoming storms. Monitoring can be performed with one or more methods considered in Table 3 (i.e. terrestrial laser scanning; aerial photo interpretation; drone digital photogrammetry; camera recording analysis; transect photo sets; multi-temporal satellite imagery analysis). Nevertheless the list is not exhaustive; in fact also “structure from motion photogrammetry” has been used to document the effect of storm on CBDs (Nagle-McNaughton, T.; Cox, R. Measuring change using quantitative differencing of repeat structure-from-motion photogrammetry. Remote Sensing 2020, 12, 42). Finally, advising for methods to isolate the onshore boulder movement from global meteorological event is beyond the aim of our manuscript. However, some examples of the potentiality of the CBDs study for this issue can be found in literature. We here mention Autret et al., 2018 (listed in References as [21]) that were able to correlate coastal boulder activation over Brittany coast (France) with WEPA and NAO indices.

Are there links to be made with how connections are made between meteorological events and other physical erosion, such as hurricanes and flood damage?

Reply: Yes, there are, you have hit the mark. In our opinion an incoming challenge for the researchers is to establish a correct and objective link between CBDs features and coastal flooding hazard or other storm impact effects on the coasts. With reference to the studies cited in References, please see Scicchitano et al., 2020 and 2021 (listed in References as [62] and [84], respectively).

Can you make use of established tools and methods already out there to bring the collaboration of scientific disciplines forward?

Reply: for such an issue we have written the paragraphs of the lines 461-485 (first version), lines 499-524 (revised version). Presently, we are unable to add anything else. However, we recognize that “the road is uphill” for interdisciplinarity.

 Minor comments:

line 37: too many brackets

line 77: wave --> waves (or other rephrasing)

line 216: close bracket

line 385: addressed --> address

line 412: 21th --> 21st

line 429: repetition of "the"

line 361: "is not be", reword

line 131: et alii  --> et al

line 135: et alii  --> et al (twice)

line 458: et alii  --> et al

line 478: et alii  --> et al

line 480: et alii  --> et al

Table 1 and Table A1: et alii  --> et al

Reply: All minor comments have been used to amend the text. To facilitate the comparison between the two versions, please look at the parts highlighted in the attached supplementary file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Review

 

The Imprint of Recent Meteorological Events on Boulder Deposits along the Mediterranean Rocky Coasts

 

Marco Delle Rose, Paolo Martano

 

This paper deals with a topic of current interest, namely the relationship between coastal storms and consequential movements of coastal boulders. It is therefore both timely and topical and is, in general, well presented and illustrated, and is set within a context of a broad range of relevant supporting literature. It contains some sections of good quality, but in its current form however, does possess some significant shortcomings.  Some strategies (below) may assist the authors in amending the text in order to overcome them.

 

The authors’ stated  objective is ‘to test the suitability of Coastal Boulder Deposits as geomorphological storm proxies’ (lines 34-36); the term proxy is defined by the dictionary with the word ‘substitute’.  There is certainly a causative relationship between storm characteristics and boulder movements. Boulders and storms, however, are very different entities,  but difficult to regard as substitutes. If the authors wish to stick with this vocabulary, they may do better to explain their understanding of the term proxy at the outset in this context, or otherwise consider adopting a different terminology.

 

The Introduction outlines the context of the study and introduces the reader to the Mediterranean geographical context, and sets the question that it strives to answer. It then lays out a set of basic concepts, followed by a statement of Materials and Methods.

 

Sections 1-4, which set up the programme are generally sound , and in some passages, very good. The latter part of the text, however, does not make best use of the information and data employed. This review suggests means by which the analysis of the material can be explored in order to better clarify the authors’ analyses and conclusions.  Restructuring of the latter sections would enable the reader better to evaluate the authors’ interpretation of their work, as follows:-

 

Section 5 is an excellent presentation of relevant storm characteristics, but offers the possibility of greater scope.

 

·       But first, Section 5.1 Meteorological Events Description – this section is mostly an explanation of the methods used in parameterising the storms of interest. Should this not be moved to Materials & Methods?

·       Sections 5.1.1.-5.1.8 offer succinct and well-illustrated summaries of a series of historic storms. 

 

·       The ensuing text (5.2), however, is highly descriptive and difficult to relate to the preceding material. What is the purpose of this section – what are the authors trying to achieve here? It would be helpful for the reader if the text explored the implications of the preceding descriptions, and how they link with boulder movements and relate to the overlying objective of the paper. In particular, if section 5.2 were to include some synthesis of the data by means of analysis, categorisation and summary, then more weight would be added to the work. This would then provide some novel material available for the following discussion. Is it, for example, to identify patterns, groupings, or magnitude issues of the storms? Maybe a tabulation would enable the reader to envisage a general framework.

 

 

Section 6 (Discussion) leads with the concept which states that ‘The purpose of a review is to provide "syntheses of the state of knowledge" and address "questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies”’. The text of this section, as it currently stands, is written in  narrative form. The reader might reasonably enquire as to what are those questions in this case? 

 

It is commonly the case that a singular question is posed as an introduction to the main theme, which is refined by a set of subsidiary questions.  These in turn create secondary topics, each dealing with a particular aspect of the overall theme. In this section, it might help the authors to consider subtitles of bullet point length that could form a framework of material facts relating to the outcome of the questions. (Note: This in turn may draw the authors into reconsidering and refining their initial leading question, enabling them to improve the work).

 

The synoptic and discussive sections would be much improved with clarified  structures along the lines suggested above, with preface signpost statements to differentiate each of the major points addressed.

 

Section 7 (Conclusion):  Lines 487-500 simply repeat material covered in the early stages of the paper. It does not require replication here.

 

The purpose of a conclusion is to summarise the findings. The primary question in this case was to ‘assess the suitability of selected sites as geomorphological  storm proxies’. In their conclusion, therefore,  the prime duty of the authors is to  assess whether the proxies are suitable and if so, why and how? 

 

The authors may find it helpful to think along these lines………  1, create a brief bullet point title for each finding, identifying its characteristics and 2, extend it into explanatory text as required.

 

A rewriting of the conclusion along the lines suggested above would significantly improve the presentation of the results.

 

Style of English Text.

 

It is evident that the text is not written by an English native speaker. The text in general comprises a good range of vocabulary, but does display two characteristics requiring improvement.

 

In the more synoptic and discussive sections, sentences currently tend to be overlong such that they tend to lack clarity of meaning. It is suggested that the creation of bullet point type statements as starting points in creating shorter sentences, and as a means of breaking the text into smaller more easily digested paragraphs; it would also be helpful to ‘signpost’ the trend of the argument from one paragraph to the next.

 

There is an abundance of small textual errors throughout. Every sentence requires careful scrutiny and potential correction.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This paper deals with a topic of current interest, namely the relationship between coastal storms and consequential movements of coastal boulders. It is therefore both timely and topical and is, in general, well presented and illustrated, and is set within a context of a broad range of relevant supporting literature. It contains some sections of good quality, but in its current form however, does possess some significant shortcomings.  Some strategies (below) may assist the authors in amending the text in order to overcome them.

The authors’ stated  objective is ‘to test the suitability of Coastal Boulder Deposits as geomorphological storm proxies’ (lines 34-36); the term proxy is defined by the dictionary with the word ‘substitute’.  There is certainly a causative relationship between storm characteristics and boulder movements. Boulders and storms, however, are very different entities,  but difficult to regard as substitutes. If the authors wish to stick with this vocabulary, they may do better to explain their understanding of the term proxy at the outset in this context, or otherwise consider adopting a different terminology.

Reply: In the first version of the manuscript we have not sufficiently described the concept of “geomorphological storm proxies” (see lines 34-35). We apologize for this shortcoming. Although the concept of "proxy data" has long been applied in paleoclimatology and climatology, the use on CBDs is in fact recent (Autret et al, 2018). In the revised version, the concept of “proxy data” is briefly exposed (see Section 2, lines 84-95) from its general features to the specific use in geomorphology. These concepts are overcoming the barriers between the scientific disciplines involved in the study of climate change and its effects on Earth. In the new paragraph we have mentioned some articles that can help understanding the subject. For further fast information, please see the site of the American Geosciences Institute (AGI) (What is a climate proxy?, https://www.americangeosciences.org/education/k5geosource/content/climate/what-is-climate-proxy) and the one of the National Center of Environmental Information of NOAA (What Are Proxy Data? https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/what-are-proxy-data). Geomorphological storm proxies may be frame as a sub-category of the sedimentary-geological category (line 89). To complete the topic and to confirm how the concepts are overcoming the epistemological barriers between scientific disciplines, the new category of "archaeological climate proxies" has recently been proposed and applied by Sandweiss, D.H.;  Andrus, C.F.T.; Kelley, A.R.; Maasch, K.A.; Reitz, E.J.; Roscoe, P.B. (2020). Archaeological climate proxies and the complexities of reconstructing Holocene El Niño in coastal Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117. 201912242. In the new text, however, we did not report also this detail.

The Introduction outlines the context of the study and introduces the reader to the Mediterranean geographical context, and sets the question that it strives to answer. It then lays out a set of basic concepts, followed by a statement of Materials and Methods.

Sections 1-4, which set up the programme are generally sound , and in some passages, very good. The latter part of the text, however, does not make best use of the information and data employed. This review suggests means by which the analysis of the material can be explored in order to better clarify the authors’ analyses and conclusions.  Restructuring of the latter sections would enable the reader better to evaluate the authors’ interpretation of their work, as follows:-

Section 5 is an excellent presentation of relevant storm characteristics, but offers the possibility of greater scope.

• But first, Section 5.1 Meteorological Events Description – this section is mostly an explanation of the methods used in parameterising the storms of interest. Should this not be moved to Materials & Methods?

Reply: Yes, we agree. Lines 176-193 of the first version of the manuscript are now reported at the end of Section Materials & Methods (current lines 133-149).

• Sections 5.1.1.-5.1.8 offer succinct and well-illustrated summaries of a series of historic storms. 
• The ensuing text (5.2), however, is highly descriptive and difficult to relate to the preceding material. What is the purpose of this section – what are the authors trying to achieve here? It would be helpful for the reader if the text explored the implications of the preceding descriptions, and how they link with boulder movements and relate to the overlying objective of the paper. In particular, if section 5.2 were to include some synthesis of the data by means of analysis, categorisation and summary, then more weight would be added to the work. This would then provide some novel material available for the following discussion. Is it, for example, to identify patterns, groupings, or magnitude issues of the storms? Maybe a tabulation would enable the reader to envisage a general framework.

Reply: Intentionally, the aim of section 5.2 was to try to infer some general characteristics of the Mediterranean storms and their coastal effects that could be useful to assess the general significance of the studied CBDs locations in terms of climatological characteristics of the storms, with reference the particular cases described in Section 5.1. This section has now been restructured, divided in 3 subsections for better clarity of subjects and exposition, and the aim and the final assessments have been more clearly stated at the beginning and end of the section.

Section 6 (Discussion) leads with the concept which states that ‘The purpose of a review is to provide "syntheses of the state of knowledge" and address "questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies”’. The text of this section, as it currently stands, is written in narrative form. The reader might reasonably enquire as to what are those questions in this case? It is commonly the case that a singular question is posed as an introduction to the main theme, which is refined by a set of subsidiary questions.  These in turn create secondary topics, each dealing with a particular aspect of the overall theme. In this section, it might help the authors to consider subtitles of bullet point length that could form a framework of material facts relating to the outcome of the questions. (Note: This in turn may draw the authors into reconsidering and refining their initial leading question, enabling them to improve the work). The synoptic and discussive sections would be much improved with clarified  structures along the lines suggested above, with preface signpost statements to differentiate each of the major points addressed.

Reply: We  restructured Section 6 according with the suggested roadmap. The previous incipit (lines 385-386, first version of the manuscript) was actually misleading, thus it is replaced by a new introduction of the discussion. The three main themes are now explicated and then discussed in the three subsections.

Section 7 (Conclusion):  Lines 487-500 simply repeat material covered in the early stages of the paper. It does not require replication here.

Reply: We agree. These lines have been deleted

 

The purpose of a conclusion is to summarise the findings. The primary question in this case was to ‘assess the suitability of selected sites as geomorphological  storm proxies’. In their conclusion, therefore,  the prime duty of the authors is to  assess whether the proxies are suitable and if so, why and how? 

Reply: The discussion section has now been divided in subsections, one of them explicitly discussing this issue. The result has been also resumed in the Conclusions.

The authors may find it helpful to think along these lines………  1, create a brief bullet point title for each finding, identifying its characteristics and 2, extend it into explanatory text as required.

Reply: We created subtitles and subsections for the sections 5.2 and 6, clarifying and enriching the text accordingly.

A rewriting of the conclusion along the lines suggested above would significantly improve the presentation of the results.

Reply: The conclusions now present a clearer short list of the principal results.

Style of English Text.

 It is evident that the text is not written by an English native speaker. The text in general comprises a good range of vocabulary, but does display two characteristics requiring improvement.

 In the more synoptic and discussive sections, sentences currently tend to be overlong such that they tend to lack clarity of meaning. It is suggested that the creation of bullet point type statements as starting points in creating shorter sentences, and as a means of breaking the text into smaller more easily digested paragraphs; it would also be helpful to ‘signpost’ the trend of the argument from one paragraph to the next.

 There is an abundance of small textual errors throughout. Every sentence requires careful scrutiny and potential correction.

Reply: The English language has been revisited in the whole manuscript, with the elimination of textual errors found in the first version ad for better fluidity. To facilitate the comparison between the two versions, please look at the parts highlighted in the attached supplementary file. Unclear sentences have been rewritten and long sentences broken in shorter periods, especially in Sections 5.2 and 6 Also, these sections have been divided in subsections to highlight their relation with the main goals of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have taken heed of comments on the first draft of their submission, and have modified the text accordingly.  It is now more clearly structured and contains areas of new text which clarify the narrative and make the paper much more easily readable.  It also now focuses more clearly on the authors' aims and objectives.

Nevetheless, on the understanding that numerous minor English amendments are inserted into the text, the current draft could now be classified as requiring minor amendments.

It articulates a particular approach to current questions regarding the boundaries between storm and tsunami events, which other scientists also are currently addressing.  As such, it has a part to play in the debates lying ahead.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we have modified the text according to your list of corrections. However, “dynamics” (see lines 27, 68, and 481) is used as a branch of classical mechanics, thus it should be an uncountable noun. We thank you again for your efforts to improve the manuscript.