Pluri-decadal (1955&ndash;2014) evolution of glacier&ndash;rock glacier transitional landforms in the central Andes of Chile (30&ndash;33&deg;&thinsp;S)

Monnier, Sébastien; Kinnard, Christophe

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-493-2017

Articles | Volume 5, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-493-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-493-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 5, issue 3

Research article

|

29 Aug 2017

Research article |

| 29 Aug 2017

Pluri-decadal (1955–2014) evolution of glacier–rock glacier transitional landforms in the central Andes of Chile (30–33° S)

Sébastien Monnier and Christophe Kinnard

Download

Final revised paper (published on 29 Aug 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 22 Mar 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Nice and interesting study, but likely something wrong with the measurements', Andreas Kääb, 11 Apr 2016
- AC2: 'Author responses to Referee 1', Sébastien Monnier, 26 Jun 2016
RC2: 'Comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Apr 2016
- AC3: 'Author responses to Referee 2', Sébastien Monnier, 26 Jun 2016
AC1: 'Author general response to referees', Sébastien Monnier, 26 Jun 2016

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Sébastien Monnier on behalf of the Authors (26 Jun 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Jul 2016) by Arjen Stroeven

RR by Andreas Kääb (14 Jul 2016)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (21 Jul 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comment on the revised version :

The manuscript has been substantially improved since the first version. All the questions have been satisfactorily answered. The manuscript is now much better structured, the discussion much more consistent and the significance of the study clearer.

I have just a problem with the streamlines. It is not clear how they were drawn, and so their mapping appears to be highly subjective. There is probably hundreds of way of drawing the streamlines. As they obviously come from the displacement vectors, the same analyse could somehow be done from the displacement vectors. Thus how the streamlines were drawn must be much better explained, because the method must be reproducible by others. Otherwise you may also consider removing the streamlines.

Other comments :

P1, l28. Prefer « evolved » to « transformed »

P3, l23. Remove « That being said, »

Fig. 3. The limit between the Western and Eastern units are still missing.

P6, l26. Replace « well-defined steep frontal talus slopes » by « a well-defined steep front », because a talus slope is an accumulation of debris at the foot of a rock wall. This is not the case here. Same remark for p7, l29.

Legend Fig. 7. The front of which landform ? Debris-covered glacier I guess, so please give precision. What is the black line ?

P12, l7. « …where they now approximately represent three quarters… ». How can you give this estimation since the western and eastern units are not mapped ?

P12, l13-15. Again, we want to see a mapping of the thermokarst areas.

P14, l3-5. Why thermokarst would be controlled by the glacier size ? Maybe there is no thermokarst because of the steep slope ?

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (30 Jul 2016) by Arjen Stroeven

AR by Sébastien Monnier on behalf of the Authors (05 Apr 2017) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (22 Apr 2017) by Arjen Stroeven

RR by Andreas Kääb (15 May 2017)

ED: Publish as is (17 May 2017) by Arjen Stroeven

ED: Publish as is (17 May 2017) by Andreas Lang (Editor)

AR by Sébastien Monnier on behalf of the Authors (09 Jun 2017) Manuscript