Reviews and syntheses: Tufa microbialites on rocky coasts towards an integrated terminology

Garner, Thomas William; Cooper, James Andrew Graham; Smith, Alan; Rishworth, Gavin; Forbes, Matt

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-243

Preprints

22 Feb 2024

| 22 Feb 2024

Reviews and syntheses: Tufa microbialites on rocky coasts towards an integrated terminology

Thomas William Garner, James Andrew Graham Cooper, Alan Smith, Gavin Rishworth, and Matt Forbes

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.

Received: 26 Jan 2024 – Discussion started: 22 Feb 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3110 KB)

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)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

05 Nov 2024

Reviews and syntheses: Tufa microbialites on rocky coasts – towards an integrated terminology

Thomas W. Garner, J. Andrew G. Cooper, Alan M. Smith, Gavin M. Rishworth, and Matt Forbes

Biogeosciences, 21, 4785–4807, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4785-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4785-2024, 2024

Short summary

Thomas William Garner, James Andrew Graham Cooper, Alan Smith, Gavin Rishworth, and Matt Forbes

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
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

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
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

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (27 Jun 2024) by Tina Treude

AR by Thomas Garner on behalf of the Authors (30 Jul 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Aug 2024) by Tina Treude

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (14 Aug 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The manuscript is easier to read due to the modifications the authors have made though it needs to have a better focus. It also offers too much information, which is overwhelming. Re-reading the manuscript as it stands now, I would politely suggest the following changes:
I suggest putting your best foot forward and clearly focus this manuscript on the terminology/nomenclature of tufa microbialites on rocky coasts. The objective needs to be short and precisely stated at the end of the introduction. Please do not use “non-classical microbialites” for your tufa on rocky coasts. They are micribialites after all, just at different locations and with a different genesis. Using terminology from different groups of microbialites is good, as long as the morphology and formation of the structure is related to that of the originally described structure. Regarding a couple of MISS this is currently not the case, but can be fixed easily (see below). Perhaps it would help the reader to follow these steps:
Describe what rocky coasts are and what the main sedimentary, hydraulic, chemical agents are. What are the differences to the traditional microbialites sites, e.g., falling water?
Describe the various structures that occur and what the main mechanisms of formation are of each of them. This is crucial, because on this your classification will be based.
Based on this, a classification of rocky coast microbialites can be suggested, making sure not to invent new terms for structures that already exist. For example, it is great that MISS occur at rocky coasts such as mat chips (as long as they occur where the parent mat developed on loose grains).
Please be clear when you are writing about microbial mats, when you write about structures. Currently there appears to be a mix between the two. The aspect of biogenicity does not play any role in a classification/terminology. The suggestion is to erase this aspect.
Overall, perhaps the figure (sketch) showing the various main types of rocky coast microbialites in general would be a good center piece. From there, various subgroups of microbilaites can be distinguished based on morphology and formation mechanism: stromatolithic, because…; thrombolithic, because….; looks like mat chip (MISS), because…..By this approach the reader can follow better. The overlay with environmental scale to microscale is adding a layer of confusion that is not necessary. Also the various discussions of other classifications are of no use and unconvincing. Personlly, I would leave all that out.
Some minor issues:
Line 106ff: leiolites, dendrolites are missing in this list
Line 11: MISS would not occur on rocky coasts, because their formation mechanisms would not allow these structures to form on hard substrates.
1. The section 3. Classifying and describing…
Please note that description comes always before the classification.
2. The section 4 is much clearer written. Figure 3: are these all modern examples?
3. Figure 4 should be a main focus of your manuscript. It is very well done.
4. Please add scales to all your figures. Please add arrows to help the reader follow your arguments along.
5. Fig 6 mixes structures with mat features. Example: gas domes, shrinkage cracks, mat chips, and roll-ups (mat curls) are all MISS. Blister mats, pustules, etc are mat features. Please correct this figure accordingly. A reader may also wonder, why you would differ into mat topography and mat features: what is the difference? What is internal organization?
6. Gas domes, petees, polygonal oscillation cracks are MISS. They are not “features” of microbial mat (LINE 739f). Referring these as mesostructures is subjective only, because no criteria are given for their classification into this group.
7. Internal organization: there should be differentiated between mat textures and those that include sediment. Overall, this is very incomplete - perhaps omit?
8. Fig. 10: these are MISS, not mat features (see above). A shows something but not gas domes; this looks cemented as well, which would not be the case if these would be still living mats forming true gas domes; b: formation of mat chips, here are no shrinkage cracks visible; c: correct, d:correct, mat chips still floating in water.
9. Microstructures: there seems a lot of future work that still needs to be done. Omit?
10. 4.3.3 goes back into the microbialite classification and it is unclear what the connection is to the tufa microbialites.
Summary: commonly, no references are cited anymore in the Conclusion

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (15 Aug 2024) by Tina Treude

AR by Thomas Garner on behalf of the Authors (28 Aug 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (18 Sep 2024) by Tina Treude

AR by Thomas Garner on behalf of the Authors (18 Sep 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

05 Nov 2024

Reviews and syntheses: Tufa microbialites on rocky coasts – towards an integrated terminology

Thomas W. Garner, J. Andrew G. Cooper, Alan M. Smith, Gavin M. Rishworth, and Matt Forbes

Biogeosciences, 21, 4785–4807, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4785-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4785-2024, 2024

Short summary

Thomas William Garner, James Andrew Graham Cooper, Alan Smith, Gavin Rishworth, and Matt Forbes

Viewed

Total article views: 523 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
368	118	37	523	18	21

HTML: 368
PDF: 118
XML: 37
Total: 523
BibTeX: 18
EndNote: 21

Views and downloads (calculated since 22 Feb 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2024	103	24	5	132
Mar 2024	48	15	1	64
Apr 2024	21	9	3	33
May 2024	49	14	3	66
Jun 2024	63	17	7	87
Jul 2024	35	14	5	54
Aug 2024	27	8	6	41
Sep 2024	14	9	4	27
Oct 2024	8	8	3	19
Nov 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 22 Feb 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2024	103	24	5	132
Mar 2024	48	15	1	64
Apr 2024	21	9	3	33
May 2024	49	14	3	66
Jun 2024	63	17	7	87
Jul 2024	35	14	5	54
Aug 2024	27	8	6	41
Sep 2024	14	9	4	27
Oct 2024	8	8	3	19
Nov 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 505 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 505 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 05 Nov 2024

Download

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

Short summary

There is a diverse and often conflicting suite of terminology, classifications and nomenclature applicable to the study of terrestrial carbonate deposits and microbialites (sediments that are wholly or largely deposited as the result of microbial activity). We review existing schemes and identify duplication and redundancy; and present a new integrated approach applicable to tufa microbialites on rock coasts as well as a wide number of environments and deposits.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0