the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
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.
- Preprint
(3110 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 31 May 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-243', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Feb 2024
reply
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
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
170 | 47 | 8 | 225 | 7 | 6 |
- HTML: 170
- PDF: 47
- XML: 8
- Total: 225
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1