Temporal variability in detrital <sup>10</sup>Be concentrations in a large Himalayan catchment

Dingle, Elizabeth H.; Sinclair, Hugh D.; Attal, Mikaël; Rodés, Ángel; Singh, Vimal

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-611-2018

Articles | Volume 6, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-611-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-611-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 6, issue 3

Research article

|

27 Jul 2018

Research article |

| 27 Jul 2018

Temporal variability in detrital ¹⁰Be concentrations in a large Himalayan catchment

Elizabeth H. Dingle, Hugh D. Sinclair, Mikaël Attal, Ángel Rodés, and Vimal Singh

Download

Final revised paper (published on 27 Jul 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 15 Jan 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review notes esurf-2017-73 by Dingle et al.', Maarten Lupker, 17 Feb 2018
SC1: '10Be concentration temporal variations in the Marsyandi catchment', Vincent Godard, 20 Feb 2018
- AC1: 'Author reply to Vincent Godard', Elizabeth Dingle, 20 Apr 2018
RC2: 'comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Feb 2018
AC2: 'Author reply to both Reviewers', Elizabeth Dingle, 20 Apr 2018

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Elizabeth Dingle on behalf of the Authors (20 Apr 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 May 2018) by Michele Koppes

RR by Maarten Lupker (17 May 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review notes esurf-2017-73 R1 by Dingle et al.

I just reviewed a revised manuscript by Elizabeth Dingle and co-workers on the variability of 10Be signals in fluvial sediments of the Ganga catchment in the central-western part of the Himalaya. As mentioned in my previous review I think this is a valuable contribution that should be considered for publication. Most of the comments that I made during my previous review have been addressed and the manuscript improved. The revision has induced some changes in the conclusion, notably on the magnitude of the difference between cosmogenic nuclide-derived denudation rates and actual erosion fluxes under landsliding conditions. I find these new conclusions more convincing, especially in comparison with other published literature on the subject.

I still have one main comment on the new approach that needs to be considered before publication. In order to take into account that the cosmogenic nuclide profile being mobilised by landslide is likely not at steady state, the authors have chosen to model this by reducing the surface production rate by 10 at/g/yr (p11, l17 to 27 & Figure 9). First, it is unclear to me why this value has been chosen, second it seems to me that you would be better off considering a reduction of exposure duration but keep the initial production rate. Doing so, would be analogous to change the recurrence interval of landsliding at a given point of the landscape, a quantity that has a geomorphological meaning rather than considering the landslides to artificially occur at a lower elevation (what is done by lowering the production rate). This is unlikely to change the main conclusions of the paper but would, in my opinion, be a more logical approach in this case.

Minor comments:
- p.3, l. 1-11: This would be a paragraph to also mention other studies that observed variability in the 10Be signal through repeated sampling such as in Godard et al., (2012) along the Marsyangdi.
- p.7, l. 20: within the variability of modern samples?

I am looking forward seeing the final version published!

Maarten Lupker – ETH Zürich

Hide

RR by Amanda Schmidt (17 May 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (30 May 2018) by Michele Koppes

AR by Elizabeth Dingle on behalf of the Authors (27 Jun 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (09 Jul 2018) by Michele Koppes

ED: Publish as is (09 Jul 2018) by Niels Hovius (Editor)

AR by Elizabeth Dingle on behalf of the Authors (10 Jul 2018)

Short summary

We present 18 new cosmogenic radionuclide samples collected from modern river sand and dated Holocene terrace and floodplain deposits from the Ganga River at the Himalayan mountain front, which display a notable degree of temporal variability. This variability is explored using field observations and numerical and statistical analysis. We propose that the observed variability is driven by the nature of stochastic inputs of sediment and the evacuation timescales of individual sediment deposits.

Temporal variability in detrital 10Be concentrations in a large Himalayan catchment

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Temporal variability in detrital ¹⁰Be concentrations in a large Himalayan catchment