Deep crustal structure of the southern Baltic Sea in the light of seismic and potential field data
Abstract. The southern Baltic Sea lies within a critical transitional zone between two major geological provinces of Europe: the Precambrian East European Platform and the Palaeozoic Platform of Western Europe. While the shallow expression of this boundary is generally marked by the Caledonian deformation front, the deeper crustal configuration remains contentious due to thick Phanerozoic cover. This study integrates seismic interpretation with 2-D gravity and magnetic modelling to investigate the deep crustal architecture beneath the southern Baltic Sea. Four new seismic profiles (BGR16-256, BGR16-202, BGR16-257, BGR16-259), acquired during the BalTec (MSM52) expedition, were analysed alongside borehole and legacy seismic data. Seismic imaging reveals that the upper crust was primarily shaped by Permian–Mesozoic extension and Late Cretaceous inversion. Extensional basins such as the Mid-Polish Trough and Rønne Graben accumulated up to 4 km of sediments, later uplifted and folded during inversion, which caused displacements of 1.5–2 km and produced asymmetrical marginal troughs with NE-directed compressional vergence. The gravity and magnetic models, constrained by seismic horizons, enable imaging of deeper crustal levels including the top of the lower crust and the Moho, which lies between 38 and 42 km depth. These data reveal that thick Baltica-type crust extends south-westward beyond the Teisseyre-Tornquist Zone, contradicting interpretations that propose a sharp lithospheric boundary along this zone. A key finding is the identification of a NE–SW-trending crustal lineament, likely inherited from Precambrian lithospheric fabric. Furthermore, evidence of pre-Triassic tilting and erosion of Silurian strata suggests a significant tectonic event, possibly related to early Carboniferous uplift. The combined data provide new insights into the complex tectonic evolution of the region, supporting a model of Baltica crustal affinity beneath the southern Baltic Sea and emphasising the interplay of inherited Precambrian structures, Permian-Mesozoic extension, and Late Cretaceous inversion.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Solid Earth.
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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
This is a well-written and, generally, well-executed study of additional shallow seismic lines in the southern Baltic Sea, supplemented by gravity and magnetic modeling. The results support a complex transition zone between the East European Craton and Phanerozoic Europe — a concept that appears to have increasingly gained traction in recent years.
While I generally follow the seismic interpretation and understand the technical aspects of the potential field modeling, I have some concerns regarding the gravity and magnetic models. Some of these concerns may possibly be resolved by adding appropriate clarification or documentation; others may require some more significant changes. The main issue is how the top lower crust and Moho depth are constrained, which is not properly documented. Furthermore, the general modelling approach is unclear (what was the basis for the decision-making of which data to fit and which structures to perturb). One of the four analyzed profiles in this paper is assigned a different density in the lower crust (Why?), and all densities appear to be inconsistent with those published in Ponikowska et al. (2024), which are crossing the profiles. All of these profiles are later used together in the same inversion scheme. As a result, I argue that the Moho depths across the various profiles are not directly comparable due to these inconsistencies. Additionally, I would expect to see better integration with other seismic lines in the region and a more in-depth discussion of why different Precambrian terranes may have responded differently to rifting. It would also be helpful to integrate and discuss how this affects our understanding of the STZ/TTZ — or more broadly, the margin of the EEC from the surface to the base of the lithosphere.
General Comments
Gravity/Magnetic Modeling Approach:
I have several questions about the overall modeling approach. The paper provides a general explanation of how gravity and magnetic modeling were performed and work, but does not describe the specific strategy adopted in this study. It’s also unclear what constraints were applied and how/to what degree — beyond the shallow seismic reflection lines, there should be other, sometimes deep adjacent seismic lines, and how the parameters or parameter ranges were selected.
Other Seismic Lines in the Study Area
In discussing and comparing crustal structure, other seismic lines beyond Ponikowska et al. (2024) may be discussed in more detail — potentially PL1-5600, PQ2-91, BASIN9601, the BalTec refraction line, and the BABEL lines. These lines intersect or approach the modeled area and are notably absent from the interpolated models of top basement, Moho depth, and crustal thickness.
EEC Margin, STZ–TTZ, Trans-European Suture Zone
For a complete discussion of the EEC boundary's width and complexity, the authors should include the most recent literature — including work by some co-authors of this paper — and extend the discussion into the sub-crustal domain. Consider incorporating the Sorgenfrei–Tornquist Zone and the so-called “Tornquist Fan,” which represents an equally complex transition. This is critical, as lithosphere-scale processes can reveal structural complexity that’s not visible in crustal data alone.
Other General Comments
Detailed Comments (with possible repetition from general comments):
To summarise: What exactly was the modeling approach? How were the Moho and lower crust interfaces defined and adjusted? Was priority given to gravity or magnetics, and why? Why were Moho depths not perturbed when unconstrained? Many long-wavelength gravity anomalies could be addressed with Moho changes. The approach may be fine, but it needs to be explicitly laid out.