the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 13 Jul 2026
Evolution of the Auckland Volcanic Field (New Zealand) boundary
Abstract. Monogenetic volcanic fields pose a significant risk to life and infrastructure when situated near urban regions. To place constraints on developing volcanic unrest scenarios and apply hazard mitigation measures, emergency planners and decision makers must consider where the next eruption may occur and the likelihood that it will be within the present bounds of the field. Utilising a high-precision chronology of eruptions, tested against a synthetically derived dataset, we examine the likelihood that the next eruption from the Auckland Volcanic Field (AVF) will occur within or outside of the present field boundary. We mapped the spatial-temporal growth of the field using a temporally evolving convex hull boundary, and the locations of subsequent eruptions were then tracked to test whether they fell within the convex hull boundary defined by the existing eruption centers. When considering eruptions since 63 ka, this retrospective approach reveals a probability of 71 % that the next eruption will fall within the current boundary of the field or 74 % when age uncertainty is considered. When a 3.5 km buffer is added to the convex hull, the probability increases to 98 %. Meanwhile, use of a synthetic dataset allows a forward looking analysis which suggests a 2 km buffer may be sufficient to capture at least 95 % of future eruption locations. We found that the AVF boundary grew in steps, where one to four new eruptions would occur outside the boundary with subsequent eruptions within the newly expanded boundary. Local scale spatio-temporal clustering also occurs with successive clustered centres aligning in a NNE/NE direction. We propose that this process relates to either changing magmatic source processes or crustal magmatic pathways that are available for use for multiple eruptions before closing off to new magma due to conduit cooling, solidification or changing tectonic stress patterns.
- Preprint
(2542 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2684', Helena Seivane, 19 Aug 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Craig Miller, 27 Aug 2026
27/08/2026.
Dear Dr Ramos,
Thank you for your thorough and useful review of our preprint which has helped to strengthen our manuscript. We have addressed all your comments as detailed in reply below.
Regards
Craig Miller on behalf of the author team.
Reviewer comment
The main issue is that the manuscript does not yet distinguish its contribution sufficiently clearly from that of Le Corvec et al. (2013). To understand the purpose of the present study and how it differs from previous work, I found it necessary to consult that paper. Le Corvec et al. (2013) already used convex hulls and simulations, discussed Poisson distributions, and focused on the same study area. The manuscript should therefore explain explicitly what question remains unresolved and how the present analysis addresses it.
Le Corvec et al. (2013) discussed the probable composition, timing, and volume of a future eruption, whereas the location of the next eruption appears to be the principal focus of the present study. If this is indeed the key distinction, it should be stated clearly from the outset. As I understand it, the manuscript uses statistical analyses and sensitivity tests to evaluate how spatial parameters affect forecast accuracy. This objective, and its significance relative to earlier work, should be made explicit in the Introduction and consistently reflected throughout the manuscript. A reader should be able to understand the rationale, novelty, and importance of the study without having to consult another publication.
Reply
Outstanding question in our study: We explicitly state the overarching questions motivating this work in the introduction. Firstly, we state the most fundamental and challenging question to answer of any monogenetic field, “where will the next eruption take place”, and then suggest a simple, new and more tractable question “What is the likelihood of the next eruption being within the existing field boundary”. We pose this motivating question in the 3rd paragraph of Introduction, which is novel and not addressed in any previous studies, and now state it in the title.
By contrast, Le Corvec et al. (2013) is not examining this question and instead addresses the possible processes that control spatio-temporal vent distributions and their geochemical patterns. A small part of their method requires constructing convex hull to describe the boundary of the field at different timesteps; however, this is simply a practical mechanism to test whether the Poisson vent distribution holds through time.
Novel methods in our study: We use the random distribution finding together with a revised eruption order list (Hopkins 2021) as a starting point to undertake a new probabilistic study and create a novel synthetic analysis for forecasting future field behaviour.
In summary, our work is substantially different from Le Corvec et al. (2013) through addressing a novel question not posed in that or other studies and using novel approaches. We use their finding of Poisson behaviour only to justify and initiate our probabilistic work and new synthetic analysis and consider that no ongoing consultation of their paper is required to understand our new work.
Changes made: We have revised the Introduction section accordingly to highlight the novel aspects of our work and emphasis how it uses the work of Le Corvec et al (2013) only as a starting point. Relevant phrases include:
“Here we pose a novel, fundamental question that holds value for emergency management officials tasked with managing volcanic hazards in monogenetic fields: `What is the likelihood of the next eruption centre being within the existing field boundary?'”
“Although eruption centres appear to be randomly distributed through time (Le Corvec et al., 2013a), determining whether the next eruption is more likely to be inside or outside of the current boundary places useful constraints on the development of eruption scenarios (e.g. Hayes et al. 2018; Hayes et al. 2020)”
“Our study extends the work of Le Corvec et al. (2013a) through using the recently refined dataset of eruption ages of Hopkins et al. (2021) and uses the fundamental observation of random behaviour to develop a new Monte Carlo style synthetic model with predictive power for future eruptive centre locations with respect to the field boundary.”
Reviewer comment
Title
The title should be more specific and more clearly reflect the study's main objective. In its current form, it may suggest a broad review of the geological evolution of the AVF rather than a methodological investigation of spatial eruption forecasting
Reply
We have updated the title to directly reflect the motivating question and main objective for this study “Will the next Auckland Volcanic Field (New Zealand) eruption occur within the existing field boundary?”
Reviewer comment
Abstract
In addition to describing the dataset as high precision, please report the number of eruptions or volcanic centres included in the analysis. This information is important for assessing the scope and statistical basis of the study.
Reply
The sentence has been amended to read “Utilising a high-precision chronology of 51 dated volcanic centres…”
Reviewer comment
- Introduction and framing of the study
The statement that hazard assessment is important because the population inevitably overlaps with the volcanic field is not sufficiently precise. The word inevitably is unnecessary and may invite questions that are not relevant to the study. A stronger justification would be to state the extent of the volcanic field, identify the urban areas located within it, and provide the approximate population exposed. These facts would establish the significance of the hazard more directly.
Reply
We removed the work “inevitably” and added the population (5 million) that lives within the 1000 square kilometre Chichinautzin Volcanic Field as the first example. The significance of the study is then clearly restated in the 3rd paragraph where we state the Auckland Volcanic Field is located in the metropolitan center of Auckland, a city with a population of over 1.7 million people. Both these examples directly establish the significance of the hazard.
Reviewer comment
The statement that the extent or boundary of monogenetic volcanic fields “may also show alignment” requires clarification and supporting references. Are there documented cases both with and without such alignment? If so, please distinguish between them explicitly. If alignment is consistently observed in the cases considered, the modal verb may should be reconsidered and the statement reformulated more precisely
Reply
We have reformulated this state more precisely as follows:
“At fields with strong tectonic control, the extent or boundary of monogenetic fields also shows alignment with underlying structures, such as the Lunar Crater Volcanic Field, USA (Tadini 2014) and the Debre Zeyit, Wonji, and Kone volcanic fields in the Main Ethiopian Rift (Mazzarini 2016).”
Reviewer comment
The Introduction should also explain why Monte Carlo simulations are appropriate for this problem. The relationship between the assumed stochastic process, the fit to a Poisson distribution, and the choice of simulation framework should be introduced before the Methods. At present, this rationale becomes apparent only after consulting Le Corvec et al. (2013).
Reply
We have updated the introduction to establish the Poisson relationship is derived from Le Corvec et al. (2013). This also helps address later reviewer comments on the Poisson relationship.
“In addition, LeCorvec (2013) showed that the spatial distribution of eruption centers in the AVF fits a Poisson model, i.e., that eruption centre locations are randomly distributed. This fundamental observation allows us to create synthetically derived datasets through Monte Carlo simulations of eruptive centre location. The AVF also provides a globally unique case study for examining our motivating question, as 94 % of the eruptive centres have an associated eruption age Hopkins (2021). Using this recently updated dataset of eruption ages we present an analysis of the evolution of the AVF boundary and derive a method to examine the likelihood of the next eruption occurring within the existing boundary of the field. We compare the AVF data with the synthetic datasets to test how these likelihoods vary as a function of the field boundary size and number of eruptive centres.”
Reviewer comment
- Reproducibility of the synthetic simulations (Section 2.2)
The synthetic simulation procedure requires a substantially more detailed description. In particular please explain why each simulation contains 250 volcanic centres when the observed dataset contains 51. The choice may be methodologically justified, but that justification should be stated clearly.
Reply
We have expanded this section to provide more detailed information and justification as follows
To extend the record beyond the range of the current observations and examine the probability of future eruptions occurring within the present field boundaries, we developed a synthetic dataset from 1,000 simulations of AVF development. Each realisation consists of a sequence of 250 volcanic centres randomly generated from a uniform distribution within the bounding ellipse defined by the parameters of Spörli and Eastwood (1997). 250 centres is a convenient yet realistic number that extends the simulated field beyond the range of the observed record and is also large enough to show the asymptotes in non-linear trends (see section 3.2). This allows us to determine how well the simulations align with the observed record where they overlap and then explore how those trends evolve in the future. Furthermore, many volcanic fields often have hundreds of eruptive centres with Valentine et al. (2021), reporting some fields such as Pinacate in Mexico having more than 400 eruptive centres in the Quaternary. Allen and Smith (1994) considered the AVF to be in its infancy and as we are interested in the future evolution of the field it is important to extend our analysis beyond the 54 reported eruptions to a number that is both mathematically stable and geologically realistic.
Reviewer comment
More generally, referring only to “simulations” does not provide enough information for the analysis to be reproduced. Please describe the simulation algorithm, parameter values and distributions, number of realizations, spatial domain and boundary conditions, assumptions, and any criteria used to compare the synthetic and observed datasets.
Reply
The manuscript already provides the requested information. Nonetheless we have clarified this section. The term “simulation” is a commonly used catch-all word for the steps followed to produce the synthetic data set. We have clarified that these are simulations of AVF development.
The algorithm is described in the preceding section “2.1 Field area growth” i.e.,
“Using the eruption order from Hopkins (2021) and centre coordinates from QMAP Heron (2023), we computed the convex hull of the field across the evolution of the AVF. After the first three eruptions a convex hull polygon is formed and we can then assess whether the `next' (i.e., 4th) eruption occurs inside or outside the boundary of the hull. We redraw the boundary for each subsequent eruption and again assess if the next eruption centre occurs inside or outside the boundary. Repeating this process produces a sequence of convex hull geometries and a binary flag indicating whether each eruption centre was located inside or outside the preceding convex hull.”
On lines 140 to 145 we state the parameter values are randomly generated from a uniform distribution. The number of realizations is already stated as 1000 (line 141), the spatial domain and boundary conditions are given as “within a bounding ellipse defined by the parameters of Spörli and Eastwood (1997)” (line 143) as also illustrated in Figure 1.
To ensure reproducibility, we made sure the code is available via links in the code and data availability section. We have added “Refer to Miller (2026b) for code to reproduce the synthetic data”.
Reviewer comment
- Interpretation of the physical constraint (Section 3.4, lines 221–223)
If the reported behaviour follows directly from an underlying physical constraint, the present interpretation risks sounding self-evident. The discussion would be more informative if it addressed why that constraint cannot currently be characterised or monitored directly—for example, because it may reflect deep crustal or mantle structure operating over timescales of thousands of years. This limitation could then be used to explain why a probabilistic approach is appropriate given the current state of knowledge and observational capability.
Reply
This results section is purely descriptive with no discussion of physical constraints - we are unsure what the “present interpretation” is and are therefore unable to respond.
Though we do not discuss any physical constrains in lines 221-223, the underlying physical constraints are mentioned in the Introduction and discussed in section 4.1 where we use our findings to suggest that a physical limit exists on the magma source extent, similar to that proposed by Spörli and Eastwood (1997); however, it is unclear whether we are being asked to comment on these points as the Reviewer refers to lines 221-223 only.
Reviewer comment
- Poisson models and organisation of the results
Poisson models are apparently introduced for the first time in Section 4 (line 245), although they seem relevant to results presented earlier, particularly Figure 7 in Section 3.2. If the Poisson interpretation comes from Le Corvec et al. (2013), this should be attributed explicitly (for example, “According to Le Corvec et al. [2013], the volcanic centres are consistent with a Poisson model”). If the present study independently tests or demonstrates this behaviour, the corresponding method and result should be reported. In either case, the concept should be introduced before it is used to interpret the figures. The current ordering makes the logic of the analysis difficult to follow.
Reply
We now establish the Poisson model in the Introduction where it is specifically attributed to Le Corvec et al (2013) and establishes the context for the synthetic model. This also establishes the random nature of vent distribution early in our paper - see previous reply to reviewer. In Section 4 we have rearranged the first sentence to make the attribution direct to Le Corvec (2013).
LeCorvec (2013) demonstrated that the AVF volcanic centres consistently fit a Poisson model over the course of the field's history, signifying that vent distributions are largely randomly positioned within the boundary ellipse of the field.
Reviewer comment
- Interpretation of Figure 8 (line 277)
Please clarify whether Figure 8 represents synthetic data. If it does, the purpose of discussing orientation in a synthetic dataset needs further explanation. Is orientation imposed by the simulation, produced emergently by the model, or used as a diagnostic against the observed pattern? Explaining this point would make the interpretation of the figure more meaningful.
Reply
Figure 8 represents actual eruption centre data, not simulated, however we see it could be confusing in that we use a distance obtained from the synthetic analysis mixed with observed data. We have updated the caption as follows.
Figure 8. A) Distance between consecutive eruption centres at the AVF. The shaded region reflects the lower 5th percentile of distances from the synthetic analysis, for comparison with the observed AVF data in black dotted line. B) Spatial orientation of the observed anomalously clustered AVF vents showing a mostly NNE/NE alignment.
We have also reinforced in the main text that the red shaded area in Figure 8 is from synthetic data as well as been explicit about what is the observed data vs synthetic data e.g. “This observed value far exceeds the clustering predicted in our synthetic dataset…”
Specific comments
Reviewer comment
Section 1.1
Figure 1: Please add an inset map showing the location of the study area within New Zealand. The explanatory information currently placed in the caption could be incorporated into a map legend where appropriate. There appears to be enough space to label the 51 volcanic centres, or at least the principal centres subsequently discussed in the text. Moving the colour scale outside the main map could create additional space and improve readability.
Reply
We have updated the figure to include a location map and have moved the naming of the centres from the caption to the figure.
Reviewer comment
The statement that “for some statistical tests there was substantial variation” should be more specific. Which tests showed substantial variation, what varied, and why might this matter for the subsequent interpretation of the results?
Reply
We have revised and expanded this sentence as below to illustrate that even though Runge et al (2015) described the variations as substantial, their later statistical tests showed no significant departure from the null hypothesis of random vent distribution.
Runge et al. (2015) analysed the sensitivity of the boundary geometry for hazard assessment and concluded that, for the AVF, different options created similar shapes, but for some statistical tests, such as those determining the likelihood of clustering, there was variation in results. Runge et al. (2015) showed that the contour-based boundaries suggest clustering, the ellipse and rectangular boundaries suggest random dispersion, and the convex hull suggests a more regularly spaced vent distribution. Importantly for our study though, none of these results are statistically different from the null hypothesis of random vent distribution.
Reviewer comment
Lines 69–71: The meaning of these sentences is unclear, possibly as a result of an editing error. Please revise them for coherence.
Reply
There was an erroneous citation inserted here (Hayes 2018) which has been removed.
Reviewer comment
Line 72: Please provide appropriate references for the convex hull method, including relevant methodological or foundational studies and applications in this context.
Reply
We have added two references to the convex hull method and described in plain language what a convex hull is.
A convex hull (Barber et al., 1996) is the smallest shape that completely encloses a set of points and is implemented using the Python Scipy module (Virtanen et al., 2020).
In section 1.1 we already establish that other studies have used that convex hull and have expanded that to include other examples relevant to our study.
Studies of other volcanic fields have used elliptical boundaries, e.g., Lunar Crater, (Tadini et al., 2014) and volcanic fields in the Ethiopian Rift (Mazzarini et al., 2016), while Le Corvec et al. (2013b) compared elliptical boundaries to convex hull boundaries for the Armenia and Potrillo volcanic fields. Meanwhile Zhang and Lutz (1989) used convex hulls to define the extent of kimberlite volcanic fields in Nigeria and South Africa. In all these cases the shape of the bounding polygon was also inferred to represent the extent of the magma source region beneath it
Reviewer comment
Lines 75–77: The relevance of this information to the study is unclear. Please explain how it supports the analysis or consider removing it.
Reply
We have removed these lines as they are explained in Figure 1 caption.
Reviewer comment
Section 1.2
Lines 82–83: This information helps establish the significance of the study area and would be more effective in the general Introduction.
Reply
This is already stated in the last paragraph of the general introduction “The AVF provides a globally unique case study for examining this question, as 94 % of the eruptive centres have an associated eruption age (Hopkins et al. 2021)”.
As such we have removed the repeated statement from lines 82-83.
Reviewer comment
Please clarify the assumptions concerning spatial and temporal randomness. Why is the temporal distribution considered potentially non-random while the spatial distribution is treated as random? The rationale and supporting evidence should be stated explicitly.
Reply
We have commented on temporal randomness or clustering as below.
As shown in Figure 2, temporal clustering is apparent, as evident by the number of eruptions clustering in groups between 20 and 30 ka. Cassidy et al. (1999) and Cassidy and Locke (2010) proposed temporal clusters of non-spatially clustered eruption centres, based on common paleo-magnetic directions from Shibuya et al. (1992). These potential temporal clusters do not impact on our analysis of the next vent location with respect to the boundary, which is independent of eruption timing. However, should future detailed paleo-magnetic analysis further refine the order of eruptive centre formation, then re-analysis of the AVF boundary evolution with respect to our motivating question may be warranted.
Reviewer comment
Section 2.5
Please define buffer when it is first introduced and explain how the buffer distance is selected and used in the analysis.
Reply
We added the following text after the first use of the term “buffer” in section 1.1.
“Here the term buffer refers to an expansion of an outline polygon e.g., ellipse or convex hull, by an equal amount in all directions, such that the shape of the original polygon remains the same, but its area increases proportional to the buffer size.”
Reviewer comment
Line 155: The expression “a behavioural shift” is too general. Please describe the observed change more precisely and, if possible, quantify it.
Reply
We have change this to read more precisely “which marks the start of when eruptions began to occur more frequently in the field”.
Reviewer comment
Organisation of Section 3
Section 3.3 appears to be more appropriately placed as Section 3.2.1, depending on its relationship to the preceding analysis. Please review the subsection hierarchy.
Reply
Section 3.3 discusses clustering in both the synthetic dataset as well as the observed AVF dataset. As such it does not belong solely to the previous synthetic dataset section and requires its own section.
Reviewer comment
Line 235: Please correct the typographical error.
Reply
Fixed, space inserted.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2684-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Craig Miller, 27 Aug 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2684', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Sep 2026
Review of the manuscript ""Evolution of the Auckland Volcanic Field (New Zealand) boundary" by Craig Miller et al.
I have now read the manuscript (and I apologize once again for the delay). The study tries to provide a quantitative answer to the question "will the next vent in the AVF be outside the presently defined AVF boundary?". To this end, the authors adopt a set of analysis applied iteratively to the record of age-known eruptions in the AVF, as well as to a set of synthetic eruption catalogues generated on the basis of a (uniform? see below) spatial distribution over the AVF boundary defined by a previous paper Sporli and Eastwood (1997). Further, they quantify the effect of a precautionary bufferregion around the boundary, analysing the effect of different buffer sizes.
In my opinion, the manuscripts needs major clarifications and substantial changes before being suitable for publication. In particular I try to list my major concerns (not in order of importance) in the following:
1) some of the stated results and conclusions are obvious to me. For example, lines 221-224 state the obvious: if I generate N random points with a UNIFORM pdf within a predefined area (which is what the authors do with the synthetic catalogues), it is obvious that the area covered by the points increase with increasing N, so that it then becomes more likely for the (N+1)-th point to fall within the previously-covered area. Same applies to the sentence in lines 207-208.
On the other hand, it would be interesting to quantify the "probability gain" by expanding the hull in time: in my opinion the authors should not only measure how often a new vent falls outside the previously-defined hull, but consider also how larger the new hull needs to be with repect to the previously-defined hull. Or, in other words, penalize a large hull that needs to be enlarged with respect to a small one. Would it be feasible? I think it would add information, more useful than just counting how often a vent falls outside.2) why do the authors generate catalogues of 250 events if they have 51 in the real catalogue? In figure 7a (as well in figure A1-a-d-g) they should stop the cumulative plot at x=51 on the x-axis, and maybe run a statistical test to check if the real curve is compatible with the ones based on the simulated catalogues (it does not seem to me). To me, it is quite striking that the synthetic catalogues seems unable to capture the real area covered by the 51 AVF centres, as the synthetic catalogues all seem to cover smaller areas than the real AVF. This is very important and casts doubts on the "uniformity" of vents in the real catalogue. In other words, if I have understood correctly the plot 7A, it shows that the 51-data synthetic catalogues do not capture the larger area covered by the real 51 centres. This is maybe due to the spatiotemporal clustering (see below point 3) found on the real data? Would it make sense to generate another set of synthetic catalogues of 51 events each, not uniformly random but considering the clustering angle and distance shown in Figure 8b, and see if then the new synthetic catalogues capture the larger area?
3) section 3.3: it needs to be clarified that you are looking to spatio-temporal clustering (clustering of subsequent events) rather than clusterng by itself. The latter could mean that there are preferred clusters of location, regardless the succession of events.
4) discussion on completeness of the data: as figure 2 shows, there is a possible incompleteness in the AVF data (which is a very common problem), since the apparent increase in the eruptive rate in recent times compared to old data could be simply explained with the missing old events or old eruptive centres obliterated by younger ones. I know this is an unavoidable problem, but all of the analysis assumes that the record is complete, otherwise it makes no sense. So I think it would be honest to state this in the introduction and in the conclusions.
5) Section 3.3 and figure 8a: I needed to read this iteratively several times to figure out what the number 2584 is. I figured out, then, it is the 5th percentile of the distance between successive centres in the synthetic uniformly-generated catalogues. If this is the case, my suggestion is to rewrite all of this section starting from this, or in any case rewrite this part to explain better because it is really cumbersome in the present form.
Also, I suggest to generate synthetic catalogues of 51 events only, recompute the 5th percentile of the distance between successive events and run a statistical test to check whether the observed number of real vents closer than that percentile is significant at 5% significance level (another option avoiding the test is to count how many catalogues have such a number of successive events closer than that distance, and see if they are less that 1% or 5% of the 1000 synthetic catalogues).5) Considerations on figure 6: I think the authors missed to consider the (apparent?) increasing rate of eruptions in time. When they compute that on average one event in 10000 years falls outside the hull with a standard deviation of 8000 years (lines 191-192), they assume that the rate of eruptions in time is constant, which is not (either a real feature or due to incompleteness as discussed in point 4 above, figure 2). I would have expected that the NUMBER of events outside the previously defined hull decreases in time (as the hull becomes larger and larger), and I think it does. The observed RATE of events outside the hull is a combined effect of the rate of eruptions increasing in time and the number of events outside the hull decreasing in time due to the hull area increasing. I hope I made this point clear, and I think it should be discussed. So lines 191-192 should be completely rewritten, and probably figure 6 should be combined with figure 2 in some way.
6) I am not sure this is the right word, but I think there is a bit of "misuse" of the word "random". "Random" is a general term and can have a different meaning, it can for example mean random according to poissonian model, or a uniform spatial model, or gaussian and so on, and still be random in the sense "stochastic". To improve the clarity, when the authors say "random", they should also specify according to what stochastic model, in my opinion, at least in some instances. For example, in lines 245 and 255 the authors state two very different things and both cannot apply simultaneously, I think: they say the spatial occurrence is Poissonian (I am not sure exactly what they mean with this) and then, a few lines below, that it is clustered. I think this is very unclear, and to me confusing. Would it be possible to revise the draft and be more accurate on this?
Since I think these are all major issues, I refrain from going into smaller details or minor points as I think the paper needs another round of careful review. In any case, the topic is important and I think there is room for improvement and for the draft to become a very interesting paper.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2684-RC2
Data sets
AVF boundary evolution Craig Miller https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19688038
Model code and software
AVF boundary evolution Craig Miller and Emily Judd https://github.com/craigmillernz/AVF_boundary_evolution_paper
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 123 | 42 | 18 | 183 | 16 | 12 |
- HTML: 123
- PDF: 42
- XML: 18
- Total: 183
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear Authors,
Please find my detailed comments in the attached PDF. I hope they will be helpful in strengthening the manuscript and clarifying its contribution.
Kind regards,
Dr Helena Seivane Ramos