the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Dec 2022
Geometry and topology of Polish Outer Carpathian digital elevation model interpreted lineament network in context of regional tectonics
Abstract. The Polish part of the Western Outer Carpathians lineament network was analysed based on the GMTED2010 digital elevation model. Lineaments were identified in the visual screening of the hillshade model. To the best of our knowledge, no one has studied the geometrical properties of the network with relation to the topological ones. The NetworkGT QGIS toolbox was applied to identify the nodes and branches of the network, as well as to calculate the topology parameters. Our aim was to find differences between the western and eastern parts of the Western Outer Carpathians; therefore, the analyses were carried out in six sectors chosen based on the geographical subdivision in the geological context: three in the north, mainly the Silesian unit; and three in the south, mainly the Magura unit. We found general agreement of the identified network with the photolineament map; however, some of the photolineaments are not confirmed by digital elevation model (DEM). We found that the topological parameters of the networks change from west to east, but not from north to south. There are areas of increased interconnectivity, especially the Nowy Sącz Basin, where the lineament network may reflect a complicated system of cross-cutting deep-rooted fault zones in the basement.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1831 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1831 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1339', Fabrizio Balsamo, 16 Jan 2023
Dear Editor,
the paper by Maciej Kania and Mateusz SzczÄch deals with topological analysis of lineaments detected at regional scale in the Polish outer Carpathian belt. The paper is well written and clear in most part. There are, in my view, minor issues pertaining the figure quality and data presentation. Below some points that should be addressed before publication:
Figure 1 needs to be improved including the main tectonic features in the studies region (thrust faults, fold axis, faults). As it is is only a puzzle of colours (nappes).
Line 119-122: Section 4.2 Method section. Authors state “Thus, to reduce this bias the lineaments were extracted by two operators working independently, in three sessions, separated by intervals of several months. After each session, the results were analysed and a network of common features was created. The last stage was creating a concise network of lineaments based on the results of the three sessions”. What you mean by “results were analysed”? You mean that you merged the data (liniments) from the two operators in one single file? If so, by using this approach is there a risk to consider the same lineament two times? Please clarify how the data obtained by the two operators were treated.
Figure 3: include total number of data in each rose diagrams.
Figure 4: increase the size of fonts.
Discussion: In section 6.1 and figure 5 the authors make a comparison with previous lineaments study, mentioning sites and area which are not shown in the geological map. So it is hard to follow this discussion for readers which are not expert of these areas. It should be provided a geological/structural framework in a specific figure (or more easily mentioning and improving figure 6), rather than a simple comparison of lines as in figure 5.
Lines 258-259 in the Discussion. Authors state “However, the more complicated geometry of the western part of the network may be related to the more complicated system of the deep-rooted fault zones in this part (see further discussion below)”. This deep rooted fault zone in the basement is also mentioned in the Introduction/abstract, so I think it would be nice for a reader to see exactly where is located this fault zone in figure 1 or 2 - and figure 6, at the beginning of manuscript. Further, I found that these major faults are several, so again is important to prioritize them and describe briefly them at the beginning of manuscript.
Line 327-329 and Figure 8: this nice figure should include also the major tectonic lineaments presented in figure 7. In this way, a reader can easily catch, in one single figure (maps), the relationship between the main tectonic lineaments and the topological parameters.
Final comment is that would be nice to see in the conclusion a sentence on the potential applicaitons of this analysis. For example, areas with major connectivity are areas more suitable for minearl exploration (in other context)? any link with quary/mines in the broad study area? This kind of discussion could improve the overal quality of the paper and give direct applciations of the proposed workflow.
Best regards
Fabrizio
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1339-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maciej Kania, 24 Feb 2023
Dear Professor Balsamo,
Thank you for your favourable review and advices on improving our paper. As for the yours remarks to figures we improved their quality as well add some data, like tectonic features on the Fig. 2(1 in the earlier version) as well as inset with the basement blocks.
In the paragraph starting with line 119 we explained, that data were first merged than reviewed to avoid double counting the feature. In discussion we mentioned the Fig. 6 (7 in revised version) which we are attaching in the revised version. To better explain role of deep-rooted faults, we added notes about them in the geological setting section. The Fig. 8 (9 in revised version) contains now major tectonics lineaments.
Last but not least, we added some remarks about petroleum system and mineral waters of the Outer Carpathians in the Discussion to show usability of our study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1339-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maciej Kania, 24 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1339', Jan Golonka, 26 Jan 2023
The paper is good and worth publishing. I have posted remarks in the PDF file. General problem: many local names mentioned in text and not on the maps. It could be confusing by reader not familiar with the Polish Carpathians.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maciej Kania, 24 Feb 2023
Dear Professor Golonka,
Thank you for your favorable review and bits of advice on improving our paper. To allow better orientation of the reader in the area, we added a new figure with topographical features and geographical regions, which were used in the article, together with updated Fig. 2 (earlier 1) map should explain the area.
We carefully checked all remarks on the PDF file. Most of them regard citations or other technical issues which we updated in the revised version of the manuscript. We moved the data description into a separate section as you suggested. The Dunajec fault was marked correctly. Lastly, we added the final map before the conclusions (Fig. 10) according to your suggestion, marking relationships between the lineament system and tectonic features.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1339-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maciej Kania, 24 Feb 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1339', Fabrizio Balsamo, 16 Jan 2023
Dear Editor,
the paper by Maciej Kania and Mateusz SzczÄch deals with topological analysis of lineaments detected at regional scale in the Polish outer Carpathian belt. The paper is well written and clear in most part. There are, in my view, minor issues pertaining the figure quality and data presentation. Below some points that should be addressed before publication:
Figure 1 needs to be improved including the main tectonic features in the studies region (thrust faults, fold axis, faults). As it is is only a puzzle of colours (nappes).
Line 119-122: Section 4.2 Method section. Authors state “Thus, to reduce this bias the lineaments were extracted by two operators working independently, in three sessions, separated by intervals of several months. After each session, the results were analysed and a network of common features was created. The last stage was creating a concise network of lineaments based on the results of the three sessions”. What you mean by “results were analysed”? You mean that you merged the data (liniments) from the two operators in one single file? If so, by using this approach is there a risk to consider the same lineament two times? Please clarify how the data obtained by the two operators were treated.
Figure 3: include total number of data in each rose diagrams.
Figure 4: increase the size of fonts.
Discussion: In section 6.1 and figure 5 the authors make a comparison with previous lineaments study, mentioning sites and area which are not shown in the geological map. So it is hard to follow this discussion for readers which are not expert of these areas. It should be provided a geological/structural framework in a specific figure (or more easily mentioning and improving figure 6), rather than a simple comparison of lines as in figure 5.
Lines 258-259 in the Discussion. Authors state “However, the more complicated geometry of the western part of the network may be related to the more complicated system of the deep-rooted fault zones in this part (see further discussion below)”. This deep rooted fault zone in the basement is also mentioned in the Introduction/abstract, so I think it would be nice for a reader to see exactly where is located this fault zone in figure 1 or 2 - and figure 6, at the beginning of manuscript. Further, I found that these major faults are several, so again is important to prioritize them and describe briefly them at the beginning of manuscript.
Line 327-329 and Figure 8: this nice figure should include also the major tectonic lineaments presented in figure 7. In this way, a reader can easily catch, in one single figure (maps), the relationship between the main tectonic lineaments and the topological parameters.
Final comment is that would be nice to see in the conclusion a sentence on the potential applicaitons of this analysis. For example, areas with major connectivity are areas more suitable for minearl exploration (in other context)? any link with quary/mines in the broad study area? This kind of discussion could improve the overal quality of the paper and give direct applciations of the proposed workflow.
Best regards
Fabrizio
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1339-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maciej Kania, 24 Feb 2023
Dear Professor Balsamo,
Thank you for your favourable review and advices on improving our paper. As for the yours remarks to figures we improved their quality as well add some data, like tectonic features on the Fig. 2(1 in the earlier version) as well as inset with the basement blocks.
In the paragraph starting with line 119 we explained, that data were first merged than reviewed to avoid double counting the feature. In discussion we mentioned the Fig. 6 (7 in revised version) which we are attaching in the revised version. To better explain role of deep-rooted faults, we added notes about them in the geological setting section. The Fig. 8 (9 in revised version) contains now major tectonics lineaments.
Last but not least, we added some remarks about petroleum system and mineral waters of the Outer Carpathians in the Discussion to show usability of our study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1339-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maciej Kania, 24 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1339', Jan Golonka, 26 Jan 2023
The paper is good and worth publishing. I have posted remarks in the PDF file. General problem: many local names mentioned in text and not on the maps. It could be confusing by reader not familiar with the Polish Carpathians.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maciej Kania, 24 Feb 2023
Dear Professor Golonka,
Thank you for your favorable review and bits of advice on improving our paper. To allow better orientation of the reader in the area, we added a new figure with topographical features and geographical regions, which were used in the article, together with updated Fig. 2 (earlier 1) map should explain the area.
We carefully checked all remarks on the PDF file. Most of them regard citations or other technical issues which we updated in the revised version of the manuscript. We moved the data description into a separate section as you suggested. The Dunajec fault was marked correctly. Lastly, we added the final map before the conclusions (Fig. 10) according to your suggestion, marking relationships between the lineament system and tectonic features.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1339-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maciej Kania, 24 Feb 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 274 | 76 | 15 | 365 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 274
- PDF: 76
- XML: 15
- Total: 365
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Mateusz Szczęch
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1831 KB) - Metadata XML