Late Miocene to Holocene high-resolution eastern equatorial Pacific carbonate records: stratigraphy linked by dissolution and paleoproductivity

Lyle, Mitchell; Drury, Anna Joy; Tian, Jun; Wilkens, Roy; Westerhold, Thomas

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-1715-2019

Articles | Volume 15, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-1715-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-1715-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 5

Research article

|

16 Sep 2019

Research article |

| 16 Sep 2019

Late Miocene to Holocene high-resolution eastern equatorial Pacific carbonate records: stratigraphy linked by dissolution and paleoproductivity

Mitchell Lyle, Anna Joy Drury, Jun Tian, Roy Wilkens, and Thomas Westerhold

Download

Final revised paper (published on 16 Sep 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 07 Dec 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: 'Late Miocene to Recent High Resolution Eastern Equatorial Pacific Carbonate Records: Stratigraphy linked by dissolution and paleoproductivity', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Jan 2019
- AC1: 'Response to reviewers comments', Mitch Lyle, 08 Mar 2019
RC2: 'Comment on “Late Miocene to Recent High Resolution Eastern Equatorial Pacific Carbonate Records: Stratigraphy linked by dissolution and paleoproductivity” by Lyle et al.', Daniele Reghellin, 10 Jan 2019
- AC1: 'Response to reviewers comments', Mitch Lyle, 08 Mar 2019

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (24 Mar 2019) by Luc Beaufort

AR by Mitchell Lyle on behalf of the Authors (30 Apr 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (13 May 2019) by Luc Beaufort

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (24 May 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This is the second review of the manuscript “Late Miocene to Recent High Resolution Eastern Equatorial Pacific Carbonate Records: Stratigraphy linked by dissolution and paleoproductivity” from Mitchell Lyle et al. The new manuscript version is well structured and reads much better compared to the previous version, and I was able to follow it more easily. Most of the concerns raised in the last revision have been addressed by the authors, e.g., the aim of their study is now clearly stated in both the abstract and the introduction. I have a small number of additional comments that could help to further improve the manuscript and a few very minor technical corrections.

Specific comments

Introduction:
The introduction section is quite long. I was wondering whether it would be better to give a short introduction that defines the aim of your work and then present a second chapter that gives all the background information on the CCD evolution and CaCO3 deposition/dissolution in the east Pacific over the Cenozoic.

p. 4, lines 27-28:
The amount of carbonate production should only influence the clay percentages but not the absolute value of clay deposition.

p. 5, line 14:
The stable isotope record from Mix et al. (1995) goes back to 5 Ma. Why is only the 0–3.6 Ma interval used for the age model you generate? I think the explanation is given in line 29, but this information should be presented earlier.

p. 13, line 27:
Is there any evidence that a significant amount of deep waters from the North Pacific bathed the studied sites during low CaCO3 intervals? Typically, it is argued that deep waters in the central east Pacific are fed by deep waters deriving from the high southern latitudes.

p. 14, line 25:
I imagine that the benthic/planktic ratio of foraminifera at Site U1338 shows the same pattern that derives from the CaCO3 to bio-BaSO4 ratio from the same site as described in the paragraph above? Please make this clear in the text.

p. 17, line 19:
A few words should be spend on the timing of CAS closure (cutoff of deep-water exchange in the mid-Miocene; surface-water exchange until the late Pliocene/early Pleistocene; Stephs et al., 2010, Groeneveld et al., 2014, Sepulchre et al., 2014) and its impact on east Pacific primary productivity typically assumed (e.g., Schneider & Schmittner 2006).

Main text:
While reading the manuscript, I had the impressions that there are several repetitions particularly in the discussion section. Please check and avoid repetitions wherever possible since the manuscript is quite long.

Technical corrections

p. 2, line 9: Delete “that”.
p. 2, line 12: Unclear which processes are meant.
p. 1, line 15: Introduce CCD.
p. 3, line 28: “had to be” instead of “was to be”?
p. 3, line 32: Delete “rapid”.
p. 4, line 2: Not clear what you mean with “above the CCD from Pälike et al.”.
p. 4, lines 19 & 24: “Seven” vs “7”. Remain consistent throughout the manuscript.
p. 7, line 3: Delete “data”.
p. 7, lines 2-11: There are some repetitions in this paragraph, please reorganize.
p. 13, lines 9.10: Add references.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (01 Jun 2019) by Luc Beaufort

AR by Mitchell Lyle on behalf of the Authors (22 Jun 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (22 Jul 2019) by Luc Beaufort

AR by Mitchell Lyle on behalf of the Authors (31 Jul 2019) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Ocean sediment records document changes in Earth’s carbon cycle and ocean productivity. We present 8 Myr CaCO₃ and bulk sediment records from seven eastern Pacific scientific drill sites to identify intervals of excess CaCO₃ dissolution (high carbon storage in the oceans) and excess burial of plankton hard parts indicating high productivity. We define the regional extent of production intervals and explore the impact of the closure of the Atlantic–Pacific Panama connection on CaCO₃ burial.