The Concept of Lineaments in Geological Structural Analysis; Principles and Methods: A Review Based on Examples from Norway

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for Gabrielsen & Olesen. “The concept of lineaments in geological structural
analysis; principles and methods. A review based on examples from Norway”.

This is an interesting manuscript that reviews the concepts and techniques of lineament analyses. The manuscript is suitable for a wide audience in the tectonics and neotectonics community. The language is fine. I think it can be published after a minor revision.

I have a small number of comments:

1) I think it would be helpful for the reader to show a schematic graphical representation of the standard workflow of a lineament analysis in the beginning, maybe in chapter 3.

2) Please specify and explain the following terms:

Line 17: “mega-units”

Line 198-199: “nappe architecture”

Line 263: “zones of weakness”, do you mean zones of localized deformation?

Line 333: “architecture”, do you mean fault geometry in this case?

Line 373: “palimspastic”, do you mean “palinspastic”?

Line 403: “water magazines”, do you mean “lakes” or “reservoirs”?

Line 483: “fault ruptures”, do you mean “fault scarps” in this case?

3) In line 315 – 317 it is stated that lineaments can be used to derive the stress under which they formed. Could you please describe how such a paleostress analysis based on lineament data is carried out and how the paleostresses can be derived. This would be helpful, as it is clearly different from a common paleostress analysis based on slickenside data.

4) Fig. 1. I do not understand the color scheme. The Caledonian domain occurs twice in green and in blue. Please clarify this.

5) Fig. 5. I think it would be better to have the arrow in yellow, not in blue. It is hard to recognize.

6) In the manuscript software based automatic lineament extraction is mentioned several times. This is a technique with a very high potential. Please put it bit more focus on this topic and at least explain some of the algorithms used for lineament detection.

7) I think the manuscript would also benefit from some more information about digital elevation models (DEMs), because they are a main basis for lineament studies. Please give some information on available DEMs (SRTM, Copernicus, Lidar etc.), their resolution and use in lineament studies.

Author Response

Dear Editors of Geomatics,

 

Please find enclosed our corrected manuscript “The concept of lineaments in geological structural analysis; principles and methods. A review based on examples from Norway”.

 

The corrected manuscript has been uploaded on the Geomatics editorial page in two versions:

Version 1: with subscript “Annot” (all changes highligthed in word format) and Version 2, subscript “clean” with all corrections accepted.

Also three corrected figures (1,3 and 6; see explanations below) have been uploaded. (Note that the corrected figures are not mounted into the manuscript files). 

 

 

We are grateful for comments and suggestions provided by the three reviewers and we have  responded to the corrections/suggestions as follows:

 

 

 

Reviewer 1:

 

Line17: Reformulation to explain “mega-units” (and typo corrected)

 

Line198-199: Addition made to explain “nappe architecture”

 

Line263: Addition made to explain “zone of weakness”

 

Line 333: Addition made to explain “fault architecture”

 

Line373: Typo corrected

 

Line 403: “water magazine” corrected

 

Line 483: Corrected according to comment

 

Line 315-317: Addition made to explain palaoestress analysis (p.10)

 

Comments 5 and 6, p9: Additions made to expand on automatic lineament analysis and DEM-methods

 

Figures 1: Figure corrected to enhance clarity and remove misinterpretations (corrected figures enclosed as pdf-files). Study areas included and numbered (red boxes and yellow numbers). Figure caption has been adjusted accordingly.

 

Figure 3: We have changed colour of the boxed subareas from red to blue to avoid confusion with red boxes included in Figure 1.

 

Figure 5: Figure 5 has no yellow arrow, so we assume that the reviewer means Figure 6

 

Figure 6: Figure 6e did not reproduce in the merged proof-file from Geomatics, so we resend the original pdf. Please substitute this with Figure 6 in proof.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2:

 

Abstract:  We have considered shortening the abstract but find this difficult without loosing crucial information about the paper and the conclusions. The two other reviewers have not seen this as problematic.

 

Comments to items #1-5, p.9: Information on GIS and DEM-methods have been added (see comments 5 and 6 above).

 

Several typos and complex sentences pointed to by R2 have been corrected

Line91

Lines128-129

Line184

Line189

Lines319-321

 

 

We have carefully considered the general comments given by R2.

 

We agree fully that we use established methods already reported in the literature. Our message is, however, that the established methods should be used in a more targeted fashion and that the analytical method needs to be selected for each type and is not similar for each problem in structural geological analysis. 

We have used our analyses in Norway as examples, to illustrate that many generations of analysis may be necessary fully to benefit from the potential of the data sets (which also become improved with time). We are confident that other (and perhaps better) examples can be found elsewhere but have found it most feasible to use examples for which we have first-hand experience.

 

We do acknowledge that it would be beneficial for the paper to go deeper into GIS and DEM-models. We have added a short section on these topics. We have however focused on structural geological analytical methods (which is our speciality) and feel that we cannot contribute further on topics related GIS, DEM.

 

Finally, we try to emphasize the need for a robust data base that is constructed to include new data sets or more detailed data without reducing the quality of older generations of data (Figures 9 and 10).

 

The working procedure is schematically illustrated in Figure 11. We are afraid that a similar illustration (and discussion) of each of the specified principal approaches would significantly expand the length of the article and assumably beyond what is reasonable in this case, and also that this may blur the message of the paper.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3:

 

We have redrawn and simplified Figure 1 to make identification of examples/study areas  used in the paper more easy.

 

We have acknowledged comments provided in enclosed pdf-file, including simplification of introduction to section 3.

We feel, however, that the comprehensive list of references in chapters 3 and 4 should be kept as it is, since these summarize state-of-the art literature.

 

 

 

 

General:

 

Please note that pdf-copies of corrected figure (Figures 1, 3 and 6) have been resubmitted separately.

 

The line notations refer to the unrevised version of the manuscript (as used by the referees).

After revision (p.9 ff) the line numbers have changed due to inclusion of additional text.

 

We do hope that the revisions are satisfactory and look much forward to see the final version printed in Geomatics.

 

 

Oslo January 11^th 2024

 

 

Best regards

 

Roy H. Gabrielsen

Corresponding author

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is in the abstract and in the text too long, with repetitions, it describes territory analysis procedures already in use, with frequent references to an abundant literature (139 items). It does not contain operational instructions. Knowledge of GIS and DB is questionable.

 

• What is the main question addressed by the research?

 The paper suggests a rational approach balanced and integrated between remote sensing and field investigations.

 • Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

Basically the suggested activities are already in use in current practice, but perhaps for the first time in their entirety in Norway. The topic is not original, but provides a rational index of the applicable procedures.

 • What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The experience done in Norway.

 • What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The paper should migrate from manual of procedures to scientific paper with a collimated description of not previously reached objectives and results according suggested procedures.

The paper needs a discussion about the applicability of the suggested procedures in other geological/lithological and geodynamic contexts.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

As previously stated, the paper could be better considered as suggested procedure in geological structural analysis, as already done from geologists. In the paper the word “should” is repeated 43 times.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No problems for english language. Just some typing error.

For example, lines 91, 127, 128,184, 189; 319, 320, 321 repeat 3 times potential;

and so others

Author Response

Dear Editors of Geomatics,

 

Please find enclosed our corrected manuscript “The concept of lineaments in geological structural analysis; principles and methods. A review based on examples from Norway”.

 

The corrected manuscript has been uploaded on the Geomatics editorial page in two versions:

Version 1: with subscript “Annot” (all changes highligthed in word format) and Version 2, subscript “clean” with all corrections accepted.

Also three corrected figures (1,3 and 6; see explanations below) have been uploaded. (Note that the corrected figures are not mounted into the manuscript files). 

 

 

We are grateful for comments and suggestions provided by the three reviewers and we have  responded to the corrections/suggestions as follows:

 

 

 

Reviewer 1:

 

Line17: Reformulation to explain “mega-units” (and typo corrected)

 

Line198-199: Addition made to explain “nappe architecture”

 

Line263: Addition made to explain “zone of weakness”

 

Line 333: Addition made to explain “fault architecture”

 

Line373: Typo corrected

 

Line 403: “water magazine” corrected

 

Line 483: Corrected according to comment

 

Line 315-317: Addition made to explain palaoestress analysis (p.10)

 

Comments 5 and 6, p9: Additions made to expand on automatic lineament analysis and DEM-methods

 

Figures 1: Figure corrected to enhance clarity and remove misinterpretations (corrected figures enclosed as pdf-files). Study areas included and numbered (red boxes and yellow numbers). Figure caption has been adjusted accordingly.

 

Figure 3: We have changed colour of the boxed subareas from red to blue to avoid confusion with red boxes included in Figure 1.

 

Figure 5: Figure 5 has no yellow arrow, so we assume that the reviewer means Figure 6

 

Figure 6: Figure 6e did not reproduce in the merged proof-file from Geomatics, so we resend the original pdf. Please substitute this with Figure 6 in proof.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2:

 

Abstract:  We have considered shortening the abstract but find this difficult without loosing crucial information about the paper and the conclusions. The two other reviewers have not seen this as problematic.

 

Comments to items #1-5, p.9: Information on GIS and DEM-methods have been added (see comments 5 and 6 above).

 

Several typos and complex sentences pointed to by R2 have been corrected

Line91

Lines128-129

Line184

Line189

Lines319-321

 

 

We have carefully considered the general comments given by R2.

 

We agree fully that we use established methods already reported in the literature. Our message is, however, that the established methods should be used in a more targeted fashion and that the analytical method needs to be selected for each type and is not similar for each problem in structural geological analysis. 

We have used our analyses in Norway as examples, to illustrate that many generations of analysis may be necessary fully to benefit from the potential of the data sets (which also become improved with time). We are confident that other (and perhaps better) examples can be found elsewhere but have found it most feasible to use examples for which we have first-hand experience.

 

We do acknowledge that it would be beneficial for the paper to go deeper into GIS and DEM-models. We have added a short section on these topics. We have however focused on structural geological analytical methods (which is our speciality) and feel that we cannot contribute further on topics related GIS, DEM.

 

Finally, we try to emphasize the need for a robust data base that is constructed to include new data sets or more detailed data without reducing the quality of older generations of data (Figures 9 and 10).

 

The working procedure is schematically illustrated in Figure 11. We are afraid that a similar illustration (and discussion) of each of the specified principal approaches would significantly expand the length of the article and assumably beyond what is reasonable in this case, and also that this may blur the message of the paper.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3:

 

We have redrawn and simplified Figure 1 to make identification of examples/study areas  used in the paper more easy.

 

We have acknowledged comments provided in enclosed pdf-file, including simplification of introduction to section 3.

We feel, however, that the comprehensive list of references in chapters 3 and 4 should be kept as it is, since these summarize state-of-the art literature.

 

 

 

 

General:

 

Please note that pdf-copies of corrected figure (Figures 1, 3 and 6) have been resubmitted separately.

 

The line notations refer to the unrevised version of the manuscript (as used by the referees).

After revision (p.9 ff) the line numbers have changed due to inclusion of additional text.

 

We do hope that the revisions are satisfactory and look much forward to see the final version printed in Geomatics.

 

 

Oslo January 11^th 2024

 

 

Best regards

 

Roy H. Gabrielsen

Corresponding author

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article submitted to the Geomatics journal by authors Roy H. Gabrielsen and Odleiv Olesen may attract interest. Still, it requires a series of revisions to make it more engaging and clear. Currently, the images have low quality, compromising the understanding of the text. Therefore, it is recommended that the suggested changes be implemented.

The study area is extremely extensive, making it challenging to follow the text, especially for those unfamiliar with the geology of the examined zone. The localization of the studied areas is unclear. Additionally, despite extensive referencing of existing literature, I suggest integrating some specific references.

In the document, various methods to detect lineations are mentioned. However, in the last decade, there has been significant investment in aerial photogrammetry using UAVs. I recommend clarifying this point in the context of the methods employed in the study.

All comments have been included in the attached PDF file.

In the overall recommendation, I have specified "Reconsider after major revision," but, in reality, I consider it as a moderate revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors of Geomatics,

 

Please find enclosed our corrected manuscript “The concept of lineaments in geological structural analysis; principles and methods. A review based on examples from Norway”.

 

The corrected manuscript has been uploaded on the Geomatics editorial page in two versions:

Version 1: with subscript “Annot” (all changes highligthed in word format) and Version 2, subscript “clean” with all corrections accepted.

Also three corrected figures (1,3 and 6; see explanations below) have been uploaded. (Note that the corrected figures are not mounted into the manuscript files). 

 

 

We are grateful for comments and suggestions provided by the three reviewers and we have  responded to the corrections/suggestions as follows:

 

 

 

Reviewer 1:

 

Line17: Reformulation to explain “mega-units” (and typo corrected)

 

Line198-199: Addition made to explain “nappe architecture”

 

Line263: Addition made to explain “zone of weakness”

 

Line 333: Addition made to explain “fault architecture”

 

Line373: Typo corrected

 

Line 403: “water magazine” corrected

 

Line 483: Corrected according to comment

 

Line 315-317: Addition made to explain palaoestress analysis (p.10)

 

Comments 5 and 6, p9: Additions made to expand on automatic lineament analysis and DEM-methods

 

Figures 1: Figure corrected to enhance clarity and remove misinterpretations (corrected figures enclosed as pdf-files). Study areas included and numbered (red boxes and yellow numbers). Figure caption has been adjusted accordingly.

 

Figure 3: We have changed colour of the boxed subareas from red to blue to avoid confusion with red boxes included in Figure 1.

 

Figure 5: Figure 5 has no yellow arrow, so we assume that the reviewer means Figure 6

 

Figure 6: Figure 6e did not reproduce in the merged proof-file from Geomatics, so we resend the original pdf. Please substitute this with Figure 6 in proof.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2:

 

Abstract:  We have considered shortening the abstract but find this difficult without loosing crucial information about the paper and the conclusions. The two other reviewers have not seen this as problematic.

 

Comments to items #1-5, p.9: Information on GIS and DEM-methods have been added (see comments 5 and 6 above).

 

Several typos and complex sentences pointed to by R2 have been corrected

Line91

Lines128-129

Line184

Line189

Lines319-321

 

 

We have carefully considered the general comments given by R2.

 

We agree fully that we use established methods already reported in the literature. Our message is, however, that the established methods should be used in a more targeted fashion and that the analytical method needs to be selected for each type and is not similar for each problem in structural geological analysis. 

We have used our analyses in Norway as examples, to illustrate that many generations of analysis may be necessary fully to benefit from the potential of the data sets (which also become improved with time). We are confident that other (and perhaps better) examples can be found elsewhere but have found it most feasible to use examples for which we have first-hand experience.

 

We do acknowledge that it would be beneficial for the paper to go deeper into GIS and DEM-models. We have added a short section on these topics. We have however focused on structural geological analytical methods (which is our speciality) and feel that we cannot contribute further on topics related GIS, DEM.

 

Finally, we try to emphasize the need for a robust data base that is constructed to include new data sets or more detailed data without reducing the quality of older generations of data (Figures 9 and 10).

 

The working procedure is schematically illustrated in Figure 11. We are afraid that a similar illustration (and discussion) of each of the specified principal approaches would significantly expand the length of the article and assumably beyond what is reasonable in this case, and also that this may blur the message of the paper.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3:

 

We have redrawn and simplified Figure 1 to make identification of examples/study areas  used in the paper more easy.

 

We have acknowledged comments provided in enclosed pdf-file, including simplification of introduction to section 3.

We feel, however, that the comprehensive list of references in chapters 3 and 4 should be kept as it is, since these summarize state-of-the art literature.

 

 

 

 

General:

 

Please note that pdf-copies of corrected figure (Figures 1, 3 and 6) have been resubmitted separately.

 

The line notations refer to the unrevised version of the manuscript (as used by the referees).

After revision (p.9 ff) the line numbers have changed due to inclusion of additional text.

 

We do hope that the revisions are satisfactory and look much forward to see the final version printed in Geomatics.

 

 

Oslo January 11^th 2024

 

 

Best regards

 

Roy H. Gabrielsen

Corresponding author

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As stated in the previous review, the paper suffers of two problems coming from a very intense work of the Authors: a general lenght, wich is not favorable to a easy reading and understanding of the proposal

and

a exaggerate number of the term "should" (45) (instead of "we have"). The paper in this configuration is more similar to a "manual" finalized to the application of a methodology, than a scientific paper. The validity as manual, moreover, is questionable, because specific complexity of every geological context.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Dear Editor,

I am writing to bring to your attention a crucial matter regarding the recent revision of your manuscript titled "The concept of lineaments in geological structural analysis; principles and methods. A review based on examples from Norway.

Upon re-evaluating the latest version, I noticed that my comments and suggestions during the initial revision phase have not been incorporated. I have reattached the PDF document containing my initial comments to address this.

I strongly recommend thoroughly reviewing and incorporating the comments made during the first revision phase. This will contribute significantly to enhancing the quality and clarity of your manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Corrections to text (see new (clean and annotated) word-files

Corresdponding author have been added

First word bold in abstract sections have been removed

All references in text have been changed to the format [no, no2, no3)

Bold format in Figure-annotations have been changed from bold (Figure n) to regular (Figure n)

Format of Reference list has been adjusted according to instructions from Referee. Some minor typing errors have been found and corrected in reference list.

Reference suggested by new referee has been added in text and reference list.

The English has been corrected by a colleague whose first language is English as suggested by one of the reviewers.

 

 

Corrections to figures

Figure 1: Longitude and latitude added. N-direction is evident from l-l-grid. Boxes with locations of study areas added.

Figure 2: Longitude, latitude and N-arrow added.

Figure 3: Position of study area marked in corrected version of Figure 1. Figure caption of Figure 3 adjusted accordingly.

Figure 4: Position of study area marked in corrected version of Figure 1. Figure caption of Figure 4 adjusted accordingly.

Figure 5: Redesigned to enhance resolution and clarity. Information on color codes added. Figure caption adjusted accordingly.

Figure 6: A corrected version including the missing aeromagnetic data was submitted in the previous version of corrected figures. A full version is submitted here, including correction of inset as pointed to by the current reviewer. The origin of the data have been highlighted by addition in Figure caption.

Figure 7: The figure has been enlarged for clarity and the position of the Stuoragurra Fault (photograph) is highlighted as requested. Addition has been made to Figure caption.

Figure 11: The figure has been redesigned by the use of original figures. We hope that the resolution now is satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx