Optimizing sampling strategies in high-resolution paleoclimate records

de Winter, Niels J.; Agterhuis, Tobias; Ziegler, Martin

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1315-2021

Articles | Volume 17, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1315-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1315-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 3

Research article

|

21 Jun 2021

Research article |

| 21 Jun 2021

Optimizing sampling strategies in high-resolution paleoclimate records

Niels J. de Winter, Tobias Agterhuis, and Martin Ziegler

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Jun 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 06 Oct 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of 'Optimizing sampling strategies in high-resolution paleoclimate records' (de Winter et al.)', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Nov 2020
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Niels de Winter, 03 Feb 2021
- AC2: 'Point-by-point rebuttal to review comments', Niels de Winter, 05 Feb 2021
RC2: 'review of De Winter et al', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Jan 2021
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Niels de Winter, 03 Feb 2021
- AC2: 'Point-by-point rebuttal to review comments', Niels de Winter, 05 Feb 2021
EC1: 'Comment on cp-2020-118', Alberto Reyes, 31 Jan 2021
- AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Niels de Winter, 05 Feb 2021

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (05 Feb 2021) by Alberto Reyes

AR by Niels de Winter on behalf of the Authors (05 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Mar 2021) by Alberto Reyes

RR by Andrew Johnson (05 Apr 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This is a thorough analysis of the factors affecting the accuracy and precision of environmental information determined from stable isotope data. It shows how their effects may be mitigated by combining/aggregating data in various ways and concludes with recommendations for the best approaches to adopt in particular circumstances and to achieve particular ends. This is a complex paper and the previous version was evidently difficult to follow (see the comments of Reviewer 2 especially). The intended changes signalled in the authors’ response to the comments of reviewers 1 and 2 have been implemented such that all the specific points have been addressed and clarity improved. The inclusion of the heatmaps (Figs. 6 and 7) suggested by Reviewer 1 is a good example of a very positive response to comments on clarity. Nevertheless, the text is still difficult to follow in places due to insufficient explanation, small errors, lack of reference to figure parts, etc. I have made comments and suggestions at the relevant points (highlighted text – sometimes very short sections) in the attached annotated version of the manuscript. These should all be considered and changes implemented as appropriate.
In identifying statistical ‘solutions’ the paper points up data ‘problems’. The latter are being reduced by analytical improvements (e.g. the sample size needed for Δ47 has reduced in recent years and the analytical precision has, I think, increased) and, as the authors briefly indicate (e.g. the larger number of samples obtainable from the early, rapid stage of shell growth), data quality can be improved by appropriate targeting. Given the confounding effect of δ18Ow variation on estimates of temperature from δ18Oc, which the authors amply demonstrate, I really think they should take the opportunity to recommend that δ18Oc-based estimates of marine temperature are not conducted on euryhaline organisms. There are plenty of stenohaline marine organisms (including some that grow fast and continuously in early ontogeny) that are far better targets than the euryhaline oysters investigated in many previous works! Identifying suitable targets, referring to ongoing analytical improvements, and mentioning the possibility of constraining δ18Ow by modelling (see comment at line 505), would enable a slightly more positive/optimistic tone in the conclusions.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (25 Apr 2021) by Alberto Reyes

AR by Niels de Winter on behalf of the Authors (07 May 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 May 2021) by Alberto Reyes

AR by Niels de Winter on behalf of the Authors (18 May 2021)

Short summary

Climate researchers often need to compromise in their sampling between increasing the number of measurements to obtain higher time resolution and combining measurements to improve the reliability of climate reconstructions. In this study, we test several methods for achieving the optimal balance between these competing interests by simulating seasonality reconstructions using stable and clumped isotopes. Our results inform sampling strategies for climate reconstructions in general.