the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 22 Feb 2024
Reviews and syntheses: Tufa microbialites on rocky coasts towards an integrated terminology
Abstract. Microbialites are known from a range of terrestrial, freshwater, marine, and marginal settings with the applied descriptive terminology depending largely on the historical legacy derived from previous studies in similar environmental settings. This has led to a diversity of nomenclature and a lack of conformity in the terms used to describe and categorise microbialites. As the role of microbial mats and biofilms is increasingly recognised in the formation of tufa and terrestrial carbonates, deposits such as tufa microbialites bridge the spectrum of microbialites and terrestrial carbonate deposits.
Groundwater spring-fed tufa microbialites in supratidal rock coast environments occur at the interface of terrestrial and marine domains and necessitatethe adoption of an integrative and systematic nomenclature approach. To date, their global distribution and complex relationships with pre-defined deposits have resulted in the application of a variety of descriptive terminologies, most frequently at the macro- and meso-scale. Here we review and consolidate the multi-scale library of terminologies for microbialites and present a new geomorphological scheme for their description and classification. This scheme has greater alignment with terrestrial carbonate nomenclature at the macroscale and with marine and lacustrine microbialites at the mesoscale. The proposed terminology can primarily be applied to tufa microbialites in spring-fed supratidal settings but may also be applied to other relevant environmental settings, terrestrial carbonates, microbial mats and other microbialites.
-
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
(3110 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3110 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-243', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Feb 2024
This manuscript by Garner et al is on a very interesting topic, rocky coastline microbialites. I welcome the idea to propose a classification for two reasons: first, the manuscript gives a nice overview on various classification approaches used in the world of microbialites; second, the proposed classification itself, specifically for rocky coast microbialites. This leads me to the next point, some critique: the manuscript lacks organization and is hard to follow. This can be fixed easily, however. While reading it was unclear to me, what classification the manuscript is suggesting: the narrative starts out with a lengthy overview on various classifications of microbialites and the history. I found this start confusing. I would simply focus from begin on a short statement that there are different groups of microbialites and that this contribution will focus on rocky coast microbialites. This should be followed by a presentation of classifications by earlier workers from which this manuscript draws some aspects from. Example: some classifications appear to include aspects of the environment (geomorphology), some use the aspect of scale: macro-, meso-, micro-. In a next step, the narrative should be on the actual topic: the classification of rocky coast microbialites. I like the great images and drawings. They are informative and well described. The references are somewhat outdated - please take a look at more recent papers, including the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology - volume on Prokaryotes (2022). Overall, a highly interesting contribution that discusses the option of a classification for a microbialite group exposed less to the limelight.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Garner, 04 Jun 2024
Thank you to the anonymous referee #1 for your comments. The critique of poor organisation within the manuscript is certainly valid and one that was also picked up by referee #2. As you state, these can be easily fixed. This arose from the poorly defined scope of the manuscript: whether to focus on a broader set of related deposits, namely terrestrial carbonate (e.g., tufa, sinter etc.,) and other microbialite settings or just the core deposits (i.e., rock coast microbialites). It is evident that the later would produce a more concise and targeted manuscript. Addressing the references, I concur and thank you for the suggested reading.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Garner, 04 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-243', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 May 2024
I have gone through the manuscript entitled “Reviews and syntheses: Tufa microbialites on rocky coasts towards an integrated terminology
” by Garner et al.
I think this is a valuable piece of work that gathers information of microbialites and aims to organize and make a classification. The authors use diverse information to present and characterize the different cases, but mostly “geomorphological” features. The text is well written. Illustrations are good. Interpretations are correct. References are correct. Through my reading I have found several weak points that the authors may find useful to improve the content quality. As a general comment, there is too much information around (from previous works covering different environments)) that makes the objective unclear. Thus, the paper would benefit from reducing the amount of definitions and other floating information, and from being more concise and straight-forward or direct to address the objective: the rocky coast microbialites. Some issues deal with the following:
1) Structure of the manuscript: at present the arrangement is not the most appropriate. The way it is presented does not help much to make progress on the subject. It requires some revision involving preparation of the text following a classical paper. Present a simpler paper structure.
2) Avoid mixing description and interpretation in the same paragraph or context.
3) Check some expressions and concepts which seem mixed up, or are used as comparable terms (but aren’t equivalent). Examples: a) microbial mats, biofilms and microbialites; b) settings, environments, schemes, sites, models; c) section 2.3 is not making clear the integration, isn’t it?. d) Make sure about “non-biogenic tufas (e.g. bryophyte tufas).
3) The new classification would benefit from adding more information on thickness, textures and sedimentary structures. The small amount of data presented referred to sedimentolological (including petrography) and geochemical information (e.g., from thin sections and stable isotopes), limit the classification to “geomorphological features”.
4) As per the concepts, I encourage the authors to be more accurate when using some expressions, e.g., when referring to “texture” and “fabric”, and “fabric” and “lamination”. There are quite a few cases. Please, check carefully.
5) References:
Alonso-Zarza and Tanner (2010), Dev. in Sed. There are two different volumes by these two editors: 61 and 62. Could you be more concrete? Should you better refer to chapters? Gierlowski-Kordesh, vol 61; Arenas-Abad, vol. 61.; Deocampo, vol., 61, Alonso-Zarza and Wright, vol. 62.
6) The section of “conclusions” is mostly a “summary”.
In brief, I would recommend the authors present a more concise text which directly addresses the objective: the rocky coast microbialites.
I hope my comments will be of help.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Garner, 04 Jun 2024
Thank you to the anonymous referee #2 for your comments. The critique of too much information covering other environments and surrounding topics is valid and does indeed confuse the scope and objective of the manuscript.
Addressing the issues:
- The structure of the manuscript can certainly be improved. This was also picked up by referee #1 and can be easily addressed.
- The mixing of description and interpretation within the same paragraph or context is an issue and partially arises from a poorly defined scope of descriptive vs. genetic classification. This can be addressed.
- Expressions and concepts can all be checked. I agree ‘non-biogenic’ tufa is poorly worded and alternatives will be sought. The new classification could indeed benefit from greater descriptive and data-driven information, however, this was seen as appropriate given the scope of being a geomorphological literature-driven review. This classification is intended to aid in the future global descriptions of these deposits and the production of such information on thickness, textures and sedimentary structures.
- I will check the use of these terms, and make sure terms are correctly defined and referenced for key terminology.
- Addressing references, thank you for picking these up, they can be easily fixed.
- I concur, and likewise this can be fixed.
Thank you for these comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Garner, 04 Jun 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-243', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Feb 2024
This manuscript by Garner et al is on a very interesting topic, rocky coastline microbialites. I welcome the idea to propose a classification for two reasons: first, the manuscript gives a nice overview on various classification approaches used in the world of microbialites; second, the proposed classification itself, specifically for rocky coast microbialites. This leads me to the next point, some critique: the manuscript lacks organization and is hard to follow. This can be fixed easily, however. While reading it was unclear to me, what classification the manuscript is suggesting: the narrative starts out with a lengthy overview on various classifications of microbialites and the history. I found this start confusing. I would simply focus from begin on a short statement that there are different groups of microbialites and that this contribution will focus on rocky coast microbialites. This should be followed by a presentation of classifications by earlier workers from which this manuscript draws some aspects from. Example: some classifications appear to include aspects of the environment (geomorphology), some use the aspect of scale: macro-, meso-, micro-. In a next step, the narrative should be on the actual topic: the classification of rocky coast microbialites. I like the great images and drawings. They are informative and well described. The references are somewhat outdated - please take a look at more recent papers, including the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology - volume on Prokaryotes (2022). Overall, a highly interesting contribution that discusses the option of a classification for a microbialite group exposed less to the limelight.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Garner, 04 Jun 2024
Thank you to the anonymous referee #1 for your comments. The critique of poor organisation within the manuscript is certainly valid and one that was also picked up by referee #2. As you state, these can be easily fixed. This arose from the poorly defined scope of the manuscript: whether to focus on a broader set of related deposits, namely terrestrial carbonate (e.g., tufa, sinter etc.,) and other microbialite settings or just the core deposits (i.e., rock coast microbialites). It is evident that the later would produce a more concise and targeted manuscript. Addressing the references, I concur and thank you for the suggested reading.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Garner, 04 Jun 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-243', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 May 2024
I have gone through the manuscript entitled “Reviews and syntheses: Tufa microbialites on rocky coasts towards an integrated terminology
” by Garner et al.
I think this is a valuable piece of work that gathers information of microbialites and aims to organize and make a classification. The authors use diverse information to present and characterize the different cases, but mostly “geomorphological” features. The text is well written. Illustrations are good. Interpretations are correct. References are correct. Through my reading I have found several weak points that the authors may find useful to improve the content quality. As a general comment, there is too much information around (from previous works covering different environments)) that makes the objective unclear. Thus, the paper would benefit from reducing the amount of definitions and other floating information, and from being more concise and straight-forward or direct to address the objective: the rocky coast microbialites. Some issues deal with the following:
1) Structure of the manuscript: at present the arrangement is not the most appropriate. The way it is presented does not help much to make progress on the subject. It requires some revision involving preparation of the text following a classical paper. Present a simpler paper structure.
2) Avoid mixing description and interpretation in the same paragraph or context.
3) Check some expressions and concepts which seem mixed up, or are used as comparable terms (but aren’t equivalent). Examples: a) microbial mats, biofilms and microbialites; b) settings, environments, schemes, sites, models; c) section 2.3 is not making clear the integration, isn’t it?. d) Make sure about “non-biogenic tufas (e.g. bryophyte tufas).
3) The new classification would benefit from adding more information on thickness, textures and sedimentary structures. The small amount of data presented referred to sedimentolological (including petrography) and geochemical information (e.g., from thin sections and stable isotopes), limit the classification to “geomorphological features”.
4) As per the concepts, I encourage the authors to be more accurate when using some expressions, e.g., when referring to “texture” and “fabric”, and “fabric” and “lamination”. There are quite a few cases. Please, check carefully.
5) References:
Alonso-Zarza and Tanner (2010), Dev. in Sed. There are two different volumes by these two editors: 61 and 62. Could you be more concrete? Should you better refer to chapters? Gierlowski-Kordesh, vol 61; Arenas-Abad, vol. 61.; Deocampo, vol., 61, Alonso-Zarza and Wright, vol. 62.
6) The section of “conclusions” is mostly a “summary”.
In brief, I would recommend the authors present a more concise text which directly addresses the objective: the rocky coast microbialites.
I hope my comments will be of help.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Garner, 04 Jun 2024
Thank you to the anonymous referee #2 for your comments. The critique of too much information covering other environments and surrounding topics is valid and does indeed confuse the scope and objective of the manuscript.
Addressing the issues:
- The structure of the manuscript can certainly be improved. This was also picked up by referee #1 and can be easily addressed.
- The mixing of description and interpretation within the same paragraph or context is an issue and partially arises from a poorly defined scope of descriptive vs. genetic classification. This can be addressed.
- Expressions and concepts can all be checked. I agree ‘non-biogenic’ tufa is poorly worded and alternatives will be sought. The new classification could indeed benefit from greater descriptive and data-driven information, however, this was seen as appropriate given the scope of being a geomorphological literature-driven review. This classification is intended to aid in the future global descriptions of these deposits and the production of such information on thickness, textures and sedimentary structures.
- I will check the use of these terms, and make sure terms are correctly defined and referenced for key terminology.
- Addressing references, thank you for picking these up, they can be easily fixed.
- I concur, and likewise this can be fixed.
Thank you for these comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Garner, 04 Jun 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 368 | 118 | 37 | 523 | 18 | 21 |
- HTML: 368
- PDF: 118
- XML: 37
- Total: 523
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 207 | 40 |
| China | 2 | 60 | 11 |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 45 | 8 |
| Germany | 4 | 20 | 3 |
| Netherlands | 5 | 18 | 3 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 207
Thomas William Garner
James Andrew Graham Cooper
Alan Smith
Gavin Rishworth
Matt Forbes
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3110 KB) - Metadata XML