the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Coevolving edge rounding and shape of glacial erratics; the case of Shap granite, UK
Abstract. The size distributions and the shapes of detrital rock clasts can shed light on the environmental history of the clast assemblages and the processes responsible for clast comminution. For example, mechanical fracture due to the stresses imposed on a basal rock surface by a body of flowing glacial ice releases initial ‘parent’ shapes of large blocks of rock from outcrop, which then are modified by the mechanics of abrasion and fracture during subglacial transport. The latter processes produce subsequent generations of shapes, possibly distinct in form from the parent blocks. Lacking is a complete understanding of both the processes responsible for block shape changes and the trends in shape adjustment with time and distance away from the source outcrop. Field data on edge rounding and shape changes of Shap granite blocks (dispersed by Devensian ice eastwards from outcrop) are used herein to explore the systematic changes in block form with distance from the outcrop.
The degree of edge rounding for individual blocks increases in a punctuated fashion with the distance from the outcrop as blocks fracture repeatedly to introduce new fresh unrounded edges. In contrast, block shape is conservative, with parent blocks fracturing to produce self-similar ‘child’ shapes with distance. Measured block shapes evolve in accord with two well-known models for block fracture mechanics ─ 1) stochastic and 2) silver ratio models ─ towards one or other of these two attractor states. Progressive reduction in block size, in accord with fracture mechanics, reflects the fact that most blocks were transported at the sole of the ice mass and were subject to the compressive and tensile forces of the ice acting on the stoss surfaces of blocks lying against a bedrock or till surface. The interpretations might apply to a range of homogeneous hard rock lithologies.
- Preprint
(3918 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(833 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Paul Carling
Status: open (until 24 Oct 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1621', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Sep 2023
reply
In manuscript ‘Coevolving edge rounding and shape of glacial erratics; the case of Shap granite, UK’, the author reports on a field study that attempts to understand the effects of plucking, abrasion/attrition and fracturing during (sub)glacial transport. The study considers the complexities of the dynamic equilibrium between clast shape and edge roundness as a function of distance from the Shap granite rock outcrop. The author discusses many interrelated aspects of the processes that determine size as well as shape and edge roundness on the erratics and offers theoretical insights into why and how these develop with increasing transport distance.
The approach taken by the author is comprehensive and models of fracture mechanics are employed to predict what could happen to blocks of granite after being plucked and transported by the ice away from the outcrop. The theoretical considerations appear sound and plausible, from the perspective of shape retention as well as mean edge roundness versus distance.
My main issue with the work, which seems otherwise carefully designed (and the manuscript well written), is that the data from the field do – in my opinion - not always convincingly match those that would be expected from the theoretical considerations. The main issue here – I think – is with the author’s stated assumption that subaerial weathering after erratic deposition is negligible. Looking at the inset diagram in Figure 4, I do not think that assumption is justified. The edge rounding at the outcrop location is in the order of 50% of the values from blocks that were transported between 5-10 km. At least part of this must be attributed to subaerial, i.e. post depositional, weathering, I’d say. This view would be supported by looking at the field photograph of Fig. 6. It shows an erratic essentially split in half. The fragments remain in situ, so there is no apparent post-fracture transport in a subglacial traction zone. Still, looking at the ‘fresh’ edges, they seem remarkably rounded.
The author refers to a study by Parsons and Lee (2005) to justify the assumption, but I am not sure if that work does actually allows this. The paper says something about the texture as well as the composition (feldspar) as important factors in weathering potential, but – the way I understand it – it does not say that weathering of this particular granite on this timescale may be considered negligible. In fact, in the present submission the author himself later uses biotite mineral weathering to explain some of the edge rounding characteristics of the Shap erratics. Furthermore, some granites - albeit not necessarily Shap – are known to weather to grus rapidly (in fact, this is a particular problem for archaeological monuments, and several papers are dealing with this phenomenon).
Figures 4 and 7 are the main results figures and show clouds of measurements of edge roundness and shape that are not always aligned with the theoretical characteristics. Using envelopes and arrows in the figures, the reader is led to certain inferences and conclusions, but I have to say that I do not always find them convincing. Some of the clouds are – in my view (unless I miss the point) – not sufficiently clustered to draw any firm conclusions. I can see weak relationships based on the distribution of data points, but they are perhaps not as obvious as the author claims. I am not sure if this is related to the choice of presentation. For a start, I found it quite difficult to match an increasing distance from the source with a particular cloud of data points. Perhaps the author can give a bit more guidance here by better colour-coding (or redesigning) and cross-referencing with Fig. 3. I am not sure if the chosen diagrams are the most meaningful when trying to analyse the relationships between shape and edge roundness as a function of distance.
I am also not fully convinced of the argument with regard to tensile versus compressive stresses. The calculations about shear stresses at the base of the ice is arguably a bit simplistic, and the author’s use of terminology (e.g. subglacial traction versus lodgement, see Evans et al, 2006) is not entirely up to date. With regard to forces on erratics in a subglacial environment, for example, it would make a difference if the size of the block was such that it could be contained entirely in the traction zone. In other words, if the deforming layer is thick relative to erratic size, I imagine that tensile forces may be dominant. However, I can also imagine that compressive forces are more dominant if the thickness of the traction zone is smaller than the size of the erratic. If the traction zone is relatively constant in thickness over significant distances under the glacier, it would seem that the shift from compressive to tensile dominance could be a function of distance, assuming a progressive reduction of erratic size. This could have implications for the model of fracture dynamics (stochastic versus silver ratio). This could also have implications for the way edge rounding coevolves. I would find it harder to envisage how edge rounding could then be increasing exponentially with transport distance, for example.
So, all in all, I found the careful discussion of the theoretical outcomes of this field experiment convincing, but I think there is a flaw in one of the main assumptions, i.e. that subaerial modification of the erratics is negligible, which essentially meant that the data are not always aligned with the theory. Then there is a consideration to be made about the consequences of tensile versus compressive forces in how the fracture process develops. Also, the way the results are presented in diagram is perhaps not the most efficient and user-friendly.
I think the study has merit, but there are some issues that would need addressing before it can be published.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1621-RC1
Paul Carling
Paul Carling
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
125 | 42 | 11 | 178 | 29 | 7 | 8 |
- HTML: 125
- PDF: 42
- XML: 11
- Total: 178
- Supplement: 29
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1