4.7 Article

Reply to the comment on A remarkable last glacial loess sedimentation at Roxolany in the Dniester Liman (Southern Ukraine) Lanczont et al.

Journal

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
Volume 297, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2022.107835

Keywords

Black sea region; Late pleistocene; Last glacial period; Loess-palaeosol sequence; Magnetostratigraphy; Geochronology; Stratigraphic markers

Funding

  1. Polish National Science Centre
  2. [2018/31/B/ST10/01507]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper responds to the comment from Bakhmutov and Hlavatskyi on their study. The authors clarify that they only analyzed the formation conditions of the upper part of the Roxolany sequence and consider it to be from the Late Pleistocene. Their research is based on multi-proxy results and they emphasize the need to outline the stratigraphic background before discussing the main research topic. Bakhmutov and Hlavatskyi argue that the authors did not take into account their latest magnetic stratigraphy data.
Bakhmutov and Hlavatskyi (2022) (BH) in their comment on our paper (Lanczont et al., 2022) focus on issue of the magnetostratigraphy of the whole loess-palaeosol sequence at Roxolany. However, we analysed only the formation conditions of the upper part of this sequence, which we believe to be of the Late Pleistocene. Its exceptionally large thickness is a very local phenomenon and we consider this site as an interesting case study, atypical for other areas of Ukraine and south-eastern Europe. In our paper, we described the formation of the loess cover in a close location in relation to the palaeorelief of the region referring to the Black Sea level oscillation. Unfortunately, BH do not address our multi-directional interpretation of the S2-L2-S1-L1-S0 sequence based on the multi-proxy results. They only refer to stratigraphic background outlined very briefly in the introduction. This outline was necessary before the discussion our main research topic. BH noted that our stratigraphy did not take into account their latest published data regarding magnetostratigraphy and magnetic susceptibility, and in particular, the position of the Matuyama/Brunhes boundary. However, their magnetostratigraphic interpretation of this profile is questionable due to the lack of analysis of the magnetic carriers while detecting their differentiation during the demagnetization process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available