the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 14 Mar 2023
Aerogeophysics and light detecting and ranging (LiDAR)-based lineament interpretation of Finland at the scale of 1:500 000
Abstract. Lineaments, linear structures on the surface of the Earth, often represent the surface expressions of brittle structures, e.g., fault zones and fracture zones, or ductile shear zones. In addition, they may also represent other geological features such as lithological contacts, tectonic boundaries and Quaternary structures, or potentially a superposition of any of these. A lineament interpretation is usually the first step in the structural assessment of a crystalline bedrock setting, and the lineaments can further be used as basis for scientific research to more accurately determine the location of the previously mentioned various geological features. In this study, a multi-source lineament interpretation was performed within ArcGIS for the whole of Finland, based on light detecting and ranging (LiDAR), aerogeophysical and bathymetric raster data. The lineament database enhances the capability to produce more accurate geological maps for various geological purposes in Finland.
- Preprint
(7219 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-448', Jon Engström, 05 Apr 2023
Dear Editor and Research community,
Due to some technical issues at the Geological Survey of Finland the link to the lineament database is unfortunately wrong in our discussion section of the Preprint. The right link to the data is the following:
https://hakku.gtk.fi/en/locations/search?location_id=221
I'm sorry about this and it will be corrected in the final version of the paper.
Best regards,
Jon EngströmCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-448-AC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-448', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Apr 2023
Review of the manuscript “Aerogeophysics and light detecting and ranging (LiDAR)-based lineament interpretation of Finland at the scale of 1:500 000” by Engström et al.
General comments
In this manuscript, Engström and others present a new dataset containing manually mapped bedrock lineaments covering entire Finland. This dataset contains lineaments that were drawn using surface topography models (LiDAR and bathymetry data), and geophysical data (total magnetic and electromagnetic data). The new lineament dataset is published and openly accessible online via the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) websites. The methodology on deriving and integrating lineaments from the different base layers is generally well described. However, besides the description of the methodology which cannot be considered scientifically novel, the manuscript represents a pure representation of the lineament data, without any critical, thorough and sound interpretation of the acquired data. Due to the character of a pure representation of a new geological dataset (similar as to a new geological map), significant lack of scientific novelty, and insufficient interpretation and discussion of the data, I suggest that this paper cannot be published in its present form.
Specific comments
Mapping scale
The authors state that the novelty and the most significant addition to the previous studies of the new bedrock lineament map lies in higher spatial accuracy of the drawn lineaments, which is due to the higher resolution of the base data (especially LiDAR 2m). But the mapping scale chosen for this lineament study is 1:500.000, which per se doesn’t allow for a higher spatial accuracy. So one could use another DEM with a grid size resolution of 10 or even 50 m, for example, and the outcome would be similar and would show the same trends.
Lineaments from different data sources
I am missing a discussion about topics like: What is the difference between the LiDAR lineaments and the geophysical ones?
The authors write that 2737 out of 3476 lineaments were interpreted from only one data source. The question arises – what is the reason for this? Are the topographic (LiDAR, bathymetry) and the geophysical data showing different bedrock features (if they are representing bedrock structures)? Considering this bad match of lineaments derived from the different sources, the answer would be yes.
Field examples
The authors present two examples of field investigations of specific lineaments. This part is somewhat unrelated to the rest of the manuscript which deals with lineaments covering entire Finland, and it is not clear why exactly these examples were chosen for ground truthing. The presentation of the field data is very short, weak and insufficient.
Technical corrections
All maps lack a coordinate reference system.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-448-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jon Engström, 27 Apr 2023
Dear Referee #1,
We acknowledge the comments to the Preprint, and we can understand that there might be some lack of explanation of the scientific novelty of this study and the scientific aim of the study. The aim of the study is to produce a well documented dataset with proper metadata description of lineaments that can be and have already also partly have been utilized in further studies.
We also acknowledge that the interpretation of the data is a bit weak, since our aim was more a study of data acquired and not so much on interpretation. We acknowledge the feedback from the referee, and we will develop the Preprint further from these comments.This feedback will certainly improve the Preprint further!
Thank you once again!
Best regards,
Jon EngströmCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-448-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jon Engström, 27 Apr 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-448', Espen Torgersen, 26 Apr 2023
Engström et al. present the results from a nation-wide lineament study in Finland. The manuscript details how a new 1:500 000-scale lineament dataset has been developed, and its possible applications. The main strength of the dataset is that it is built on interpretations of several different raster sources (topography, magnetic, electromagnetic) and that the resulting lineaments are freely available for further use.
I am impressed by the work that has been put into digitizing lineaments across the country and it is obvious that the dataset will be of great value to geologists working in Finland. At the same time, the dataset and this manuscript have will have little impact outside of Finland. The primary reason for this, which is also my main critics, is that the manuscript lacks a clearly defined scientific aim. As of now it reads more like a report than a research article. There is no lack in such a large and coherent dataset of possible scientific aims that could relevant to a large audience. For instance, why linear features are detected in some datasets but not in others, or why lineaments from different sources may be positioned differently in "the same" lineament. Could we use multi-source lineament maps to classify different lineament types?
A clear scientific aim would also help to add more detailed analyses to the study. In the current manuscript the analyses are very thin and seem a bit meaningless becuase the results are not really discussed or used any further. This leaves the reader uncertain as to what the take-home messages and implications of the analyses really are.
I also miss a more detailed account of the mapping protocol so that the reader is able to understand on what basis lineaments are drawn or not (minimum width-length treshold, scale/zoom of digitalization, principles for positioning and node distance, allowance of curvature, inter-operator checking, have different operators worked in different areas? etc.). Such a detailed protocol is also vital in order for others to potentially reproduce the lineaments.
Based on these main factors I have to conclude that the manuscript in its current stage is not appropriate for publication. I think there is a lot of potential in the dataset for a great contribution to geoscience community and I hope the authors see this review as a constructive review that motivates for working further with the manuscript.
Further detailed in-text comments/questions can be found in the attached pdf.
I wish you the best of luck with continued work on the manuscript. I hope to see it out some day.
Espen
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jon Engström, 27 Apr 2023
Dear Espen Torgersen,
Thank you for the work that you have set to comment the manuscript and we acknowledge the comments.
We understand that the scientific aim of the manuscript is a bit thin now and we will improve this further. The feedback also within the manuscript document will certainly help to explain and describe the workflow better. The multi-source approach of lineament interpretation and further utilization of that is in our opinion a novel approach but we also acknowledge that this should have been highlighted and defined more clearly, how that enhances this interpretation. The further interpretation of the lineament data should also be described more thoroughly.
We will work further with the manuscript to improve it with the comments that now is received from both referees.
Thank you once again!
Best regards,
jon EngströmCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-448-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jon Engström, 27 Apr 2023
Status: closed
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-448', Jon Engström, 05 Apr 2023
Dear Editor and Research community,
Due to some technical issues at the Geological Survey of Finland the link to the lineament database is unfortunately wrong in our discussion section of the Preprint. The right link to the data is the following:
https://hakku.gtk.fi/en/locations/search?location_id=221
I'm sorry about this and it will be corrected in the final version of the paper.
Best regards,
Jon EngströmCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-448-AC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-448', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Apr 2023
Review of the manuscript “Aerogeophysics and light detecting and ranging (LiDAR)-based lineament interpretation of Finland at the scale of 1:500 000” by Engström et al.
General comments
In this manuscript, Engström and others present a new dataset containing manually mapped bedrock lineaments covering entire Finland. This dataset contains lineaments that were drawn using surface topography models (LiDAR and bathymetry data), and geophysical data (total magnetic and electromagnetic data). The new lineament dataset is published and openly accessible online via the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) websites. The methodology on deriving and integrating lineaments from the different base layers is generally well described. However, besides the description of the methodology which cannot be considered scientifically novel, the manuscript represents a pure representation of the lineament data, without any critical, thorough and sound interpretation of the acquired data. Due to the character of a pure representation of a new geological dataset (similar as to a new geological map), significant lack of scientific novelty, and insufficient interpretation and discussion of the data, I suggest that this paper cannot be published in its present form.
Specific comments
Mapping scale
The authors state that the novelty and the most significant addition to the previous studies of the new bedrock lineament map lies in higher spatial accuracy of the drawn lineaments, which is due to the higher resolution of the base data (especially LiDAR 2m). But the mapping scale chosen for this lineament study is 1:500.000, which per se doesn’t allow for a higher spatial accuracy. So one could use another DEM with a grid size resolution of 10 or even 50 m, for example, and the outcome would be similar and would show the same trends.
Lineaments from different data sources
I am missing a discussion about topics like: What is the difference between the LiDAR lineaments and the geophysical ones?
The authors write that 2737 out of 3476 lineaments were interpreted from only one data source. The question arises – what is the reason for this? Are the topographic (LiDAR, bathymetry) and the geophysical data showing different bedrock features (if they are representing bedrock structures)? Considering this bad match of lineaments derived from the different sources, the answer would be yes.
Field examples
The authors present two examples of field investigations of specific lineaments. This part is somewhat unrelated to the rest of the manuscript which deals with lineaments covering entire Finland, and it is not clear why exactly these examples were chosen for ground truthing. The presentation of the field data is very short, weak and insufficient.
Technical corrections
All maps lack a coordinate reference system.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-448-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jon Engström, 27 Apr 2023
Dear Referee #1,
We acknowledge the comments to the Preprint, and we can understand that there might be some lack of explanation of the scientific novelty of this study and the scientific aim of the study. The aim of the study is to produce a well documented dataset with proper metadata description of lineaments that can be and have already also partly have been utilized in further studies.
We also acknowledge that the interpretation of the data is a bit weak, since our aim was more a study of data acquired and not so much on interpretation. We acknowledge the feedback from the referee, and we will develop the Preprint further from these comments.This feedback will certainly improve the Preprint further!
Thank you once again!
Best regards,
Jon EngströmCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-448-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jon Engström, 27 Apr 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-448', Espen Torgersen, 26 Apr 2023
Engström et al. present the results from a nation-wide lineament study in Finland. The manuscript details how a new 1:500 000-scale lineament dataset has been developed, and its possible applications. The main strength of the dataset is that it is built on interpretations of several different raster sources (topography, magnetic, electromagnetic) and that the resulting lineaments are freely available for further use.
I am impressed by the work that has been put into digitizing lineaments across the country and it is obvious that the dataset will be of great value to geologists working in Finland. At the same time, the dataset and this manuscript have will have little impact outside of Finland. The primary reason for this, which is also my main critics, is that the manuscript lacks a clearly defined scientific aim. As of now it reads more like a report than a research article. There is no lack in such a large and coherent dataset of possible scientific aims that could relevant to a large audience. For instance, why linear features are detected in some datasets but not in others, or why lineaments from different sources may be positioned differently in "the same" lineament. Could we use multi-source lineament maps to classify different lineament types?
A clear scientific aim would also help to add more detailed analyses to the study. In the current manuscript the analyses are very thin and seem a bit meaningless becuase the results are not really discussed or used any further. This leaves the reader uncertain as to what the take-home messages and implications of the analyses really are.
I also miss a more detailed account of the mapping protocol so that the reader is able to understand on what basis lineaments are drawn or not (minimum width-length treshold, scale/zoom of digitalization, principles for positioning and node distance, allowance of curvature, inter-operator checking, have different operators worked in different areas? etc.). Such a detailed protocol is also vital in order for others to potentially reproduce the lineaments.
Based on these main factors I have to conclude that the manuscript in its current stage is not appropriate for publication. I think there is a lot of potential in the dataset for a great contribution to geoscience community and I hope the authors see this review as a constructive review that motivates for working further with the manuscript.
Further detailed in-text comments/questions can be found in the attached pdf.
I wish you the best of luck with continued work on the manuscript. I hope to see it out some day.
Espen
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jon Engström, 27 Apr 2023
Dear Espen Torgersen,
Thank you for the work that you have set to comment the manuscript and we acknowledge the comments.
We understand that the scientific aim of the manuscript is a bit thin now and we will improve this further. The feedback also within the manuscript document will certainly help to explain and describe the workflow better. The multi-source approach of lineament interpretation and further utilization of that is in our opinion a novel approach but we also acknowledge that this should have been highlighted and defined more clearly, how that enhances this interpretation. The further interpretation of the lineament data should also be described more thoroughly.
We will work further with the manuscript to improve it with the comments that now is received from both referees.
Thank you once again!
Best regards,
jon EngströmCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-448-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jon Engström, 27 Apr 2023
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 415 | 202 | 33 | 650 | 20 | 25 |
- HTML: 415
- PDF: 202
- XML: 33
- Total: 650
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 181 | 28 |
| Switzerland | 2 | 76 | 12 |
| Germany | 3 | 69 | 10 |
| Finland | 4 | 53 | 8 |
| China | 5 | 40 | 6 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 181
