| one publication added to basket [209259] | Integration of reflection seismic and sediment grain-size data from Lake Khubsugul (Northern Mongolia): a reply to Prokopenko and Kendall
Fedotov, A. P.; De Batist, M. (2008). Integration of reflection seismic and sediment grain-size data from Lake Khubsugul (Northern Mongolia): a reply to Prokopenko and Kendall. J. Paleolimnol. 40(4): 1193-1199. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10933-008-9220-8
In: Journal of Paleolimnology. Springer: Dordrecht; London; Boston. ISSN 0921-2728; e-ISSN 1573-0417, meer
|  |
| Author keywords |
Central Asia; Northern Mongolia; Lake Khubsugul; Lake sediments; Lake-level changes; Pleistocene; Seismic data |
| Auteurs | | Top |
- Fedotov, A. P.
- De Batist, M., meer
|
|
|
| Abstract |
Prokopenko and Kendall (J Paleolimnol doi:10.1007/s10933-008-9219-1, 2008) criticise the work presented in Fedotov et al. (J Paleolimnol 39:335–348, 2008), and instead propose an alternative interpretation for the grain-size evolution recorded in the KDP-01 core, retrieved from the central part of Lake Khubsugul. Their interpretation is based (i) on a seismic-stratigraphic re-interpretation of sparker seismic profile khub012 (which they copied from Fedotov et al. (EOS Trans 87:246–250, 2006)), (ii) on the presupposition that changes in lake level are the dominant control on facies distribution in Lake Khubsugul, and (iii) on the invalidation of our age-depth model. In this reply to their comment, we demonstrate that they interpreted seismic artefacts and geometries caused by changes in profile orientation as true stratigraphic features and that the lake-level reconstruction they derive from this interpretation is therefore incorrect. We also demonstrate that their grain-size predictions, which they consider to be predominantly driven by changes in lake level, are inconsistent with the measured sulphate concentration, which is a demonstrated proxy of lake level in Lake Khubsugul, and with the measured grain-size record. Finally, we point out that even if there would be a problem with the age-depth model, this problem would not affect the part of the sedimentary sequence discussed in Fedotov et al. (J Paleolimnol 39:335–348, 2008). |
|
