the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 27 Feb 2025
Revisit of the Fennoscandian Shield along the UPPLAND seismic profile: competitive velocity models
Abstract. The manuscript presents a comprehensive re-analysis of seismic data collected along the UPPLAND profile in the Fennoscandian Shield, focusing on the competitive velocity models for P-wave (Vp) and S-wave (Vs) velocities, as well as the Vp/Vs ratio. The initial data collection was conducted in 2017, and the first interpretation was published by Buntin et al. in 2021. This study reveals that while both the previous and current models exhibit similar velocities up to a depth of approximately 35 km, significant discrepancies arise in the lower crust and upper mantle velocities, as well as the depth of the Moho boundary. The preferred model indicates Vp values of approximately 7.05–7.17 km s-1 in the lower crust and 8.05 km s-1 in the upper mantle, contrasting with the earlier model's values of 7.25–7.4 km s-1 and 8.0–8.5 km s-1, respectively. The Moho depth varies between 43–50 km in the new model, compared to 45–52 km in the previous one.
In addition, we present two, possibly overlapping, tectonic interpretations to explain the new model. The main crustal structure has formed during W-vergent crustal stacking at ca. 1.86 Ga, followed by N–S crustal shortening at 1.82–1.80 Ga. The bulging of the high-velocity upper mantle is either related to extension at 1.89–1.87 Ga in a continental back-arc or during extensional magmatism at 1.7/1.8 Ga. The findings highlight the complexities in determining lower crustal and upper mantle properties from ambiguous seismic data and suggest that the interpretations presented may require a more cautious approach, allowing for alternative explanations.
-
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
(8458 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8458 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
The manuscript re-analyses seismic data from the UPPLAND profile in the Fennoscandian Shield, focusing on P- and S-wave velocity models. Significant differences between prior and present models emerge in the lower crust and mantle and in the Moho depth. The new model suggests ca. 7.1 km s-1 in the lower crust and 8.05 km s-1 in the upper mantle, with Moho at 43–50 km. Two tectonic interpretations are proposed to explain these findings, emphasising the complexities of seismic data interpretation.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-742', Annakaisa Korja, 31 Mar 2025
The publication is an excellent addition to the crustal interpretations of the Fennoscandian Shield.
The authors have been able to reprocess the DDS data set and thus are able to image more first arrivals from the mantle and the lower crust.
They have also modeled the data carefully with more details than the first version by Buntin et al., 2021.
I agree with the authors that several different interpretations are possible and that an additional orthogonal line would give additional information on the three dimensional structure and origin of the mantle reflections.
I have only a few minor concerns and questions.
1. Why, have the authors not compared the crustal structure with the subparallel BABEL 6 line to the east. The line is presented in the figure 1. UPPLAND and BABEL 6 seem to share the same Moho architecture between sp4-sp5, when compared without vertical exaggeration.
2. When looking at the reflection profiles from the area, it seems that the youngest events are best preserved and thus over-represented in the reflective images of stable crust. Why haven´t the authors described or even referred to the 1.6-1.1 Ga extensional magmatic events that have profoundly changed the reflective image of the crustal structures along BABEL 6,7 and 1 and C profiles. The northern parts of the UPPLAND profile cross-cuts the onshore fringes of the magmatic province from SP4 northwards. This question concerns both maps and text as well as interpretations.
3. This leads to the third question. Is it possible that some of the crustal and mantle structures are even younger than interpreted? What kind of seismically visible structures would have been either destroyed or enhanced during extensional later events?
4. European Moho depth map indicates that UPPLAND profile is located on a Moho slope dipping towards the east. Can this affect the interpretations of the deep reflections observed on UPPLAND profile?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Monika Bociarska, 14 Apr 2025
We would like to thank the reviewer for the review and for valuable comments. We implemented the improvements and corrections to the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer. Below are our detailed answers and explanations concerning all the reviewer’s remarks.
1. Why, have the authors not compared the crustal structure with the subparallel BABEL 6 line to the east. The line is presented in the figure 1. UPPLAND and BABEL 6 seem to share the same Moho architecture between sp4-sp5, when compared without vertical exaggeration.
We agree, we added suitable comparison to the text. The BABEL 6 line runs almost parallel to the northern part of the UPPLAND profile, at a distance of about 100 km to the east. It should be noted that due to this distance and to the fact that it is a measurement line realized using the seismic reflection method, different from WARR, the comparison of both obtained images of the upper lithospheric structure should be approached with caution. The image along the BABEL 6 line presents a very complicated structure, in which it is difficult to interpret any general boundaries for the entire model. In the middle and lower crust, there are visible separated areas of strong reflections with an extent of several tens of kilometers and a thickness of several kilometers, which are difficult to connect directly. The idea explaining their genesis presented in the work of Buntin et al., 2019 ("there is a connection between the feeder dyke and up-doming") seems highly probable. The depth of the Moho boundary presented on the BABEL 6 line (Buntin et al., 2019), 50-60 km, is about 5-10 km greater than on the corresponding fragment of our UPPLAND profile model. One of the reasons may be the use of different mean velocities in the crust during processing. The second reason may be the actual change of the Moho depth, which, judging from the European Moho depth map (Grad and Tiira, 2009), tends to increase eastward (by ~3-4 km) from the northern part of the UPPLAND profile to BABEL 6 - as the Reviewer points out in point 4.
2. When looking at the reflection profiles from the area, it seems that the youngest events are best preserved and thus over-represented in the reflective images of stable crust. Why haven´t the authors described or even referred to the 1.6-1.1 Ga extensional magmatic events that have profoundly changed the reflective image of the crustal structures along BABEL 6,7 and 1 and C profiles. The northern parts of the UPPLAND profile cross-cuts the onshore fringes of the magmatic province from SP4 northwards. This question concerns both maps and text as well as interpretations.
We agree and have added text to describe younger events, especially the rapakivi-related magmatic events along BABEL 6,7 and 1 and C profiles. Rapakivi-granites have also been added on the map (Fig. 6a). Anyhow, in Bergslagen along the UPPLAND profile, the effects of younger magmatic events on surface geology are nearly non-existent compared to BABEL 6, 7 and 1 and C profiles.
3. This leads to the third question. Is it possible that some of the crustal and mantle structures are even younger than interpreted? What kind of seismically visible structures would have been either destroyed or enhanced during extensional later events?
This is an important question and at least the 1.6 Ga rapakivi stage has probably been very important, which possibility was missing in our first interpretation. Otherwise, the 1.2 Ga, 1.0 Ga and other extensional stages can have had some effect, but the magmatic input is minor, and the present data is not detailed enough to solve this. Main problem is that the major bulging of the upper mantle occurs under Bergslagen where we have no evidence for volumetrically important 1.8/1.7/1.6 Ga or younger magmatism. If the Moho is dipping towards east (see below) the mantle bulging could increase towards the west and thus would strengthen more the hypothesis of the 1.8/1.7 Ga stages in the west as cause for bulging compared to the rapakivi stage in the east.
4. European Moho depth map indicates that UPPLAND profile is located on a Moho slope dipping towards the east. Can this affect the interpretations of the deep reflections observed on UPPLAND profile?
Very important point and we have used this in our tentative interpretation. If correct it would not favor the 1.6 Ga rapakivi stage in the east as cause for the mantle bulging under the UPPLAND profile. To comment this point from more technical point of view - theoretically, the model for a profile running over the sloping structure of the MOHO boundary has an underestimation of depth because we are modelling depth for rays reflecting perpendicular to the boundary surface. The depth directly below the line of the profile running on the surface is greater. The difference between the two values is greater the steeper the slope of the MOHO surface. In our case, it is relatively small because, according to the MOHO map by Grad et al., 2009, the depth gradient over a distance of just over 100 km between the UPPLAND and BABEL 6 profiles is about 4 km. Consequently, the underestimation of depth will be of the order of tens, at most hundreds of meters, which is much less than the accuracy of our measurements. It is worth recalling that the data from the WARR experiments are the most reliable sources of information for the construction of the MOHO depth map. Slightly less accurate, but providing a picture of the boundary geometry, are data from deep seismic reflection profiles. These two types of data are supplemented, due to the insufficient density of WARR profiles, by less accurate data from passive seismic and gravity surveys.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Monika Bociarska, 14 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-742', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Apr 2025
Review of the manuscript:
“Revisit of the Fennoscandian Shield along the UPPLAND seismic profile: competitive velocity models”
by Janik et al., submitted to Solid Earth (SE)
The manuscript offers a thorough additional analysis of seismic data acquired along the UPPLAND profile in the Fennoscandian Shield, emphasizing competing velocity models for P-waves (Vp), S-waves (Vs), and the Vp/Vs ratio. The original data, collected during a 550 km-long refraction/wide-angle reflection survey in central Sweden in 2017, were initially interpreted by Buntin et al. (2021). The presented manuscript of Janik et al. (2025) shows revised velocity models that reveal differences in lower crust and upper mantle velocities, and in the depth of the Moho boundary. Additionally, the authors propose two potentially overlapping tectonic interpretations to account for the updated models.
The data are interpreted using trial-and-error forward modeling for both P- and S-wave velocities, as well as refraction travel-time tomography. Based on the uncertainties associated with the models, the authors select a preferred model that best fits the data, particularly for the S waves (see Fig. 3). They also discuss the limitations and sources of ambiguity that can be the reason for differences in their model to that of Buntin et al. (2021). Overall, they present a reasonably constrained alternative to previously published model, making their results a valuable contribution to the scientific community and worthy of publication.
The following minor suggestions are offered to improve the manuscript:
P1 Abstract -> please mention in abstract, which methods were used to constrain the new model
P1 L9: was published by Buntin et al. in 2021 -> was published by Buntin et al. (2021)
P1 L25-27: …The velocity model (Fig. A2) was calculated, and advanced tectonic and petrological interpretation was also carried out. The great value of the work is comparative litho-geochemistry and velocity analyses for the model … -> would be good to highlight that this concerns the model of Buntin et al. (2021)
P1 L27: the model, prepared by I. Artiemieva. -> which model is it? Better say e.g., the model of Buntin et al. (2021)
Also, I. Artiemieva. -> I. Artemieva.
P1 L41-43: Verb confusion in this paragraph -> either use future tense or present tense, but systematically when referring to work carried out in this study.
Fig. 2 caption: seismic record sections for P- and S-wave -> I do not see any S waves
Fig. 2 caption: Band-pass filters, 2-15 and 1-12 Hz, have been applied, respectively -> it is not clear, which filters to which data were applied, please specify exactly
Fig. 2 caption: Abbreviations have been used for S-wave, respectively. -> I do not see any S waves in this fig.
P5 L67: Pmantle = Pn1 -> Two specifications of the same feature is confusing, please use consistently either Pmantle or Pn1, also in seismic sections.
Also, do the same for S waves
P5 L75: Sn1 twice -> Sn1 (use either Sn1 or use Smantle consistently, similarly to P waves)
P8 L107: include the reference for three tested models depicted in Fig. A4
P9 L 130, 134: (PM1P) -> (PMP)
P9 L134: For S-wave, respective residuals are much larger than P wave -> Is it taken into account that also S wave picks have higher uncertainties?
P10 L148, Fig. 5 caption: abbreviations have been used for S-wave -> abbreviations have been used for S-waves
P12 L162: first arrivals (Psed + Pg + Pn) -> either explain Psed or remove it
Also, I do not find any other mark of Psed, nor it appears in any figure
P15, Fig. 6: the model in b) is too small while the surface tectonic sketch in a) is quite large -> consider reorganization to enlarge model in panel b).
Distinguish lower crust and upper mantle in the model by different colors in Fig. 6b
Highlight the Moho in Fig. 6b
P27, Fig. A3: section of P waves, confusing labels -> improve labelling for P waves
P28-30, Fig. A4 a,b,c: Hide unconstrained parts of each model and also in panels a,b,c
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Monika Bociarska, 18 Apr 2025
We would like to thank the reviewer for the review and for valuable comments. We implemented the improvements and corrections to the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer. Below are our detailed answers and explanations concerning all the reviewer’s remarks.
P1 Abstract -> please mention in abstract, which methods were used to constrain the new model
Done
P1 L9: was published by Buntin et al. in 2021 -> was published by Buntin et al. (2021)
Done
P1 L25-27: …The velocity model (Fig. A2) was calculated, and advanced tectonic and petrological interpretation was also carried out. The great value of the work is comparative litho-geochemistry and velocity analyses for the model … -> would be good to highlight that this concerns the model of Buntin et al. (2021)
Corrected
P1 L27: the model, prepared by I. Artiemieva. -> which model is it? Better say e.g., the model of Buntin et al. (2021)
Also, I. Artiemieva. -> I. Artemieva.
Corrected
P1 L41-43: Verb confusion in this paragraph -> either use future tense or present tense, but systematically when referring to work carried out in this study.
Corrected
Fig. 2 caption: seismic record sections for P- and S-wave -> I do not see any S waves
Corrected
Fig. 2 caption: Band-pass filters, 2-15 and 1-12 Hz, have been applied, respectively -> it is not clear, which filters to which data were applied, please specify exactly
Corrected
Fig. 2 caption: Abbreviations have been used for S-wave, respectively. -> I do not see any S waves in this fig.
Corrected
P5 L67: Pmantle = Pn1 -> Two specifications of the same feature is confusing, please use consistently either Pmantle or Pn1, also in seismic sections.
Also, do the same for S waves
Corrected
P5 L75: Sn1 twice -> Sn1 (use either Sn1 or use Smantle consistently, similarly to P waves)
Corrected
P8 L107: include the reference for three tested models depicted in Fig. A4
Done
P9 L 130, 134: (PM1P) -> (PMP)
Corrected
P9 L134: For S-wave, respective residuals are much larger than P wave -> Is it taken into account that also S wave picks have higher uncertainties?
Yes, the high uncertainties of S picks are the main reason of high S-wave residuals. We added appropriate comment to the text.
P10 L148, Fig. 5 caption: abbreviations have been used for S-wave -> abbreviations have been used for S-waves
Done
P12 L162: first arrivals (Psed + Pg + Pn) -> either explain Psed or remove it
Also, I do not find any other mark of Psed, nor it appears in any figure
Corrected
P15, Fig. 6: the model in b) is too small while the surface tectonic sketch in a) is quite large -> consider reorganization to enlarge model in panel b).
Distinguish lower crust and upper mantle in the model by different colors in Fig. 6b
Highlight the Moho in Fig. 6b
Done
P27, Fig. A3: section of P waves, confusing labels -> improve labelling for P waves
Corrected
P28-30, Fig. A4 a,b,c: Hide unconstrained parts of each model and also in panels a,b,c
Done
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Monika Bociarska, 18 Apr 2025
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-742', Puy Ayarza, 30 Apr 2025
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the points raised by the reviewers
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-EC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-742', Annakaisa Korja, 31 Mar 2025
The publication is an excellent addition to the crustal interpretations of the Fennoscandian Shield.
The authors have been able to reprocess the DDS data set and thus are able to image more first arrivals from the mantle and the lower crust.
They have also modeled the data carefully with more details than the first version by Buntin et al., 2021.
I agree with the authors that several different interpretations are possible and that an additional orthogonal line would give additional information on the three dimensional structure and origin of the mantle reflections.
I have only a few minor concerns and questions.
1. Why, have the authors not compared the crustal structure with the subparallel BABEL 6 line to the east. The line is presented in the figure 1. UPPLAND and BABEL 6 seem to share the same Moho architecture between sp4-sp5, when compared without vertical exaggeration.
2. When looking at the reflection profiles from the area, it seems that the youngest events are best preserved and thus over-represented in the reflective images of stable crust. Why haven´t the authors described or even referred to the 1.6-1.1 Ga extensional magmatic events that have profoundly changed the reflective image of the crustal structures along BABEL 6,7 and 1 and C profiles. The northern parts of the UPPLAND profile cross-cuts the onshore fringes of the magmatic province from SP4 northwards. This question concerns both maps and text as well as interpretations.
3. This leads to the third question. Is it possible that some of the crustal and mantle structures are even younger than interpreted? What kind of seismically visible structures would have been either destroyed or enhanced during extensional later events?
4. European Moho depth map indicates that UPPLAND profile is located on a Moho slope dipping towards the east. Can this affect the interpretations of the deep reflections observed on UPPLAND profile?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Monika Bociarska, 14 Apr 2025
We would like to thank the reviewer for the review and for valuable comments. We implemented the improvements and corrections to the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer. Below are our detailed answers and explanations concerning all the reviewer’s remarks.
1. Why, have the authors not compared the crustal structure with the subparallel BABEL 6 line to the east. The line is presented in the figure 1. UPPLAND and BABEL 6 seem to share the same Moho architecture between sp4-sp5, when compared without vertical exaggeration.
We agree, we added suitable comparison to the text. The BABEL 6 line runs almost parallel to the northern part of the UPPLAND profile, at a distance of about 100 km to the east. It should be noted that due to this distance and to the fact that it is a measurement line realized using the seismic reflection method, different from WARR, the comparison of both obtained images of the upper lithospheric structure should be approached with caution. The image along the BABEL 6 line presents a very complicated structure, in which it is difficult to interpret any general boundaries for the entire model. In the middle and lower crust, there are visible separated areas of strong reflections with an extent of several tens of kilometers and a thickness of several kilometers, which are difficult to connect directly. The idea explaining their genesis presented in the work of Buntin et al., 2019 ("there is a connection between the feeder dyke and up-doming") seems highly probable. The depth of the Moho boundary presented on the BABEL 6 line (Buntin et al., 2019), 50-60 km, is about 5-10 km greater than on the corresponding fragment of our UPPLAND profile model. One of the reasons may be the use of different mean velocities in the crust during processing. The second reason may be the actual change of the Moho depth, which, judging from the European Moho depth map (Grad and Tiira, 2009), tends to increase eastward (by ~3-4 km) from the northern part of the UPPLAND profile to BABEL 6 - as the Reviewer points out in point 4.
2. When looking at the reflection profiles from the area, it seems that the youngest events are best preserved and thus over-represented in the reflective images of stable crust. Why haven´t the authors described or even referred to the 1.6-1.1 Ga extensional magmatic events that have profoundly changed the reflective image of the crustal structures along BABEL 6,7 and 1 and C profiles. The northern parts of the UPPLAND profile cross-cuts the onshore fringes of the magmatic province from SP4 northwards. This question concerns both maps and text as well as interpretations.
We agree and have added text to describe younger events, especially the rapakivi-related magmatic events along BABEL 6,7 and 1 and C profiles. Rapakivi-granites have also been added on the map (Fig. 6a). Anyhow, in Bergslagen along the UPPLAND profile, the effects of younger magmatic events on surface geology are nearly non-existent compared to BABEL 6, 7 and 1 and C profiles.
3. This leads to the third question. Is it possible that some of the crustal and mantle structures are even younger than interpreted? What kind of seismically visible structures would have been either destroyed or enhanced during extensional later events?
This is an important question and at least the 1.6 Ga rapakivi stage has probably been very important, which possibility was missing in our first interpretation. Otherwise, the 1.2 Ga, 1.0 Ga and other extensional stages can have had some effect, but the magmatic input is minor, and the present data is not detailed enough to solve this. Main problem is that the major bulging of the upper mantle occurs under Bergslagen where we have no evidence for volumetrically important 1.8/1.7/1.6 Ga or younger magmatism. If the Moho is dipping towards east (see below) the mantle bulging could increase towards the west and thus would strengthen more the hypothesis of the 1.8/1.7 Ga stages in the west as cause for bulging compared to the rapakivi stage in the east.
4. European Moho depth map indicates that UPPLAND profile is located on a Moho slope dipping towards the east. Can this affect the interpretations of the deep reflections observed on UPPLAND profile?
Very important point and we have used this in our tentative interpretation. If correct it would not favor the 1.6 Ga rapakivi stage in the east as cause for the mantle bulging under the UPPLAND profile. To comment this point from more technical point of view - theoretically, the model for a profile running over the sloping structure of the MOHO boundary has an underestimation of depth because we are modelling depth for rays reflecting perpendicular to the boundary surface. The depth directly below the line of the profile running on the surface is greater. The difference between the two values is greater the steeper the slope of the MOHO surface. In our case, it is relatively small because, according to the MOHO map by Grad et al., 2009, the depth gradient over a distance of just over 100 km between the UPPLAND and BABEL 6 profiles is about 4 km. Consequently, the underestimation of depth will be of the order of tens, at most hundreds of meters, which is much less than the accuracy of our measurements. It is worth recalling that the data from the WARR experiments are the most reliable sources of information for the construction of the MOHO depth map. Slightly less accurate, but providing a picture of the boundary geometry, are data from deep seismic reflection profiles. These two types of data are supplemented, due to the insufficient density of WARR profiles, by less accurate data from passive seismic and gravity surveys.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Monika Bociarska, 14 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-742', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Apr 2025
Review of the manuscript:
“Revisit of the Fennoscandian Shield along the UPPLAND seismic profile: competitive velocity models”
by Janik et al., submitted to Solid Earth (SE)
The manuscript offers a thorough additional analysis of seismic data acquired along the UPPLAND profile in the Fennoscandian Shield, emphasizing competing velocity models for P-waves (Vp), S-waves (Vs), and the Vp/Vs ratio. The original data, collected during a 550 km-long refraction/wide-angle reflection survey in central Sweden in 2017, were initially interpreted by Buntin et al. (2021). The presented manuscript of Janik et al. (2025) shows revised velocity models that reveal differences in lower crust and upper mantle velocities, and in the depth of the Moho boundary. Additionally, the authors propose two potentially overlapping tectonic interpretations to account for the updated models.
The data are interpreted using trial-and-error forward modeling for both P- and S-wave velocities, as well as refraction travel-time tomography. Based on the uncertainties associated with the models, the authors select a preferred model that best fits the data, particularly for the S waves (see Fig. 3). They also discuss the limitations and sources of ambiguity that can be the reason for differences in their model to that of Buntin et al. (2021). Overall, they present a reasonably constrained alternative to previously published model, making their results a valuable contribution to the scientific community and worthy of publication.
The following minor suggestions are offered to improve the manuscript:
P1 Abstract -> please mention in abstract, which methods were used to constrain the new model
P1 L9: was published by Buntin et al. in 2021 -> was published by Buntin et al. (2021)
P1 L25-27: …The velocity model (Fig. A2) was calculated, and advanced tectonic and petrological interpretation was also carried out. The great value of the work is comparative litho-geochemistry and velocity analyses for the model … -> would be good to highlight that this concerns the model of Buntin et al. (2021)
P1 L27: the model, prepared by I. Artiemieva. -> which model is it? Better say e.g., the model of Buntin et al. (2021)
Also, I. Artiemieva. -> I. Artemieva.
P1 L41-43: Verb confusion in this paragraph -> either use future tense or present tense, but systematically when referring to work carried out in this study.
Fig. 2 caption: seismic record sections for P- and S-wave -> I do not see any S waves
Fig. 2 caption: Band-pass filters, 2-15 and 1-12 Hz, have been applied, respectively -> it is not clear, which filters to which data were applied, please specify exactly
Fig. 2 caption: Abbreviations have been used for S-wave, respectively. -> I do not see any S waves in this fig.
P5 L67: Pmantle = Pn1 -> Two specifications of the same feature is confusing, please use consistently either Pmantle or Pn1, also in seismic sections.
Also, do the same for S waves
P5 L75: Sn1 twice -> Sn1 (use either Sn1 or use Smantle consistently, similarly to P waves)
P8 L107: include the reference for three tested models depicted in Fig. A4
P9 L 130, 134: (PM1P) -> (PMP)
P9 L134: For S-wave, respective residuals are much larger than P wave -> Is it taken into account that also S wave picks have higher uncertainties?
P10 L148, Fig. 5 caption: abbreviations have been used for S-wave -> abbreviations have been used for S-waves
P12 L162: first arrivals (Psed + Pg + Pn) -> either explain Psed or remove it
Also, I do not find any other mark of Psed, nor it appears in any figure
P15, Fig. 6: the model in b) is too small while the surface tectonic sketch in a) is quite large -> consider reorganization to enlarge model in panel b).
Distinguish lower crust and upper mantle in the model by different colors in Fig. 6b
Highlight the Moho in Fig. 6b
P27, Fig. A3: section of P waves, confusing labels -> improve labelling for P waves
P28-30, Fig. A4 a,b,c: Hide unconstrained parts of each model and also in panels a,b,c
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Monika Bociarska, 18 Apr 2025
We would like to thank the reviewer for the review and for valuable comments. We implemented the improvements and corrections to the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer. Below are our detailed answers and explanations concerning all the reviewer’s remarks.
P1 Abstract -> please mention in abstract, which methods were used to constrain the new model
Done
P1 L9: was published by Buntin et al. in 2021 -> was published by Buntin et al. (2021)
Done
P1 L25-27: …The velocity model (Fig. A2) was calculated, and advanced tectonic and petrological interpretation was also carried out. The great value of the work is comparative litho-geochemistry and velocity analyses for the model … -> would be good to highlight that this concerns the model of Buntin et al. (2021)
Corrected
P1 L27: the model, prepared by I. Artiemieva. -> which model is it? Better say e.g., the model of Buntin et al. (2021)
Also, I. Artiemieva. -> I. Artemieva.
Corrected
P1 L41-43: Verb confusion in this paragraph -> either use future tense or present tense, but systematically when referring to work carried out in this study.
Corrected
Fig. 2 caption: seismic record sections for P- and S-wave -> I do not see any S waves
Corrected
Fig. 2 caption: Band-pass filters, 2-15 and 1-12 Hz, have been applied, respectively -> it is not clear, which filters to which data were applied, please specify exactly
Corrected
Fig. 2 caption: Abbreviations have been used for S-wave, respectively. -> I do not see any S waves in this fig.
Corrected
P5 L67: Pmantle = Pn1 -> Two specifications of the same feature is confusing, please use consistently either Pmantle or Pn1, also in seismic sections.
Also, do the same for S waves
Corrected
P5 L75: Sn1 twice -> Sn1 (use either Sn1 or use Smantle consistently, similarly to P waves)
Corrected
P8 L107: include the reference for three tested models depicted in Fig. A4
Done
P9 L 130, 134: (PM1P) -> (PMP)
Corrected
P9 L134: For S-wave, respective residuals are much larger than P wave -> Is it taken into account that also S wave picks have higher uncertainties?
Yes, the high uncertainties of S picks are the main reason of high S-wave residuals. We added appropriate comment to the text.
P10 L148, Fig. 5 caption: abbreviations have been used for S-wave -> abbreviations have been used for S-waves
Done
P12 L162: first arrivals (Psed + Pg + Pn) -> either explain Psed or remove it
Also, I do not find any other mark of Psed, nor it appears in any figure
Corrected
P15, Fig. 6: the model in b) is too small while the surface tectonic sketch in a) is quite large -> consider reorganization to enlarge model in panel b).
Distinguish lower crust and upper mantle in the model by different colors in Fig. 6b
Highlight the Moho in Fig. 6b
Done
P27, Fig. A3: section of P waves, confusing labels -> improve labelling for P waves
Corrected
P28-30, Fig. A4 a,b,c: Hide unconstrained parts of each model and also in panels a,b,c
Done
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Monika Bociarska, 18 Apr 2025
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-742', Puy Ayarza, 30 Apr 2025
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the points raised by the reviewers
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-742-EC1
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
The manuscript re-analyses seismic data from the UPPLAND profile in the Fennoscandian Shield, focusing on P- and S-wave velocity models. Significant differences between prior and present models emerge in the lower crust and mantle and in the Moho depth. The new model suggests ca. 7.1 km s-1 in the lower crust and 8.05 km s-1 in the upper mantle, with Moho at 43–50 km. Two tectonic interpretations are proposed to explain these findings, emphasising the complexities of seismic data interpretation.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 204 | 44 | 15 | 263 | 21 | 35 |
- HTML: 204
- PDF: 44
- XML: 15
- Total: 263
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Tomasz Janik
Raimo Lahtinen
Piotr Środa
Dariusz Wójcik
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8458 KB) - Metadata XML