Compositional and Numerical Geomorphology Along a Basement–Foreland Transition, SE Germany, with Special Reference to Landscape-Forming Indices and Parameters in Genetic and Applied Terrain Analyses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The classification of landforms is a long-standing research topic in the field of geomorphology. This manuscript first proposes the numerical landform indices (LFl),  and the LFI is used during mapping of relief generations in the field for genetic purposesand in applied geomorphology. This study integrates a large amount of field and laboratory analysis data, conducts detailed research on the geomorphological composition and classification of the study area, proposes innovative insights, and recommends acceptance and publication of this manuscript.

However, some small opinions and suggestions hope to be modified:

1. Table 1 should be placed at the back, as a large number of geomorphic parameters and terms appear first without detailed definitions, highlighting the poor structure of the article.

2. All terrain parameters, such as the Vertical Sinusity valley (VeSival) index, Variation of Slope Angle altitude (VaSlAnalti) index, Inclusion of the Talweg Methodology plus Gradient (IncTallith/grad), Quantification Fluvial Mass Wasting index (Quantflu/mas), etc. It is recommended to provide detailed definitions in the second section of Methodology and provide illustrations of the calculation methods.

3. In Section 5.2 of The Paleoplain and Its Dissection, it is suggested to classify some landforms and their evolutionary stages in Section 3 Geological and Morphological Setting.

4. I suggest to place Part 2 Methodology after Part 3. Geological and Geomorphological setting.

5. There are too much figures in this manuscript, it is suggested that some figures should be grouped, for example, fig.4a-w. It is also suggested to put the letters a-w in the squares in the fig.4 out of the figure border, for there are too many letters in this figure.

Author Response

All changes marked in the text in yellow.

Reviewer 1

The classification of landforms is a long-standing research topic in the field of geomorphology. This manuscript first proposes the numerical landform indices (LFl),  and the LFI is used during mapping of relief generations in the field for genetic purposes and in applied geomorphology. This study integrates a large amount of field and laboratory analysis data, conducts detailed research on the geomorphological composition and classification of the study area, proposes innovative insights, and recommends acceptance and publication of this manuscript.

However, some small opinions and suggestions hope to be modified:

1. Table 1 should be placed at the back, as a large number of geomorphic parameters and terms appear first without detailed definitions, highlighting the poor structure of the article.
2. All terrain parameters, such as the Vertical Sinuosity valley (VeSival) index, Variation of Slope Angle altitude (VaSlAnalti) index, Inclusion of the Talweg Methodology plus Gradient (IncTallith/grad), Quantification Fluvial Mass Wasting index (Quantflu/mas), etc. It is recommended to provide detailed definitions in the second section of Methodology and provide illustrations of the calculation methods.

RESPONS:

To respond to point 1 and 2 together.

I tried to comply with the reviewer´s suggestions in that I split Table 1 into a Table 1a which is a general overview of all indices and how the technical terms were created. As the general and the special part named Table 1a and 1,b respectively, belong together.

To form some kind of an arch over results and discussion the second pillar to Table 1a/b is created as some sort of a graphical conclusion (see new Fig. 17)

3. In Section 5.2 of The Paleoplain and Its Dissection, it is suggested to classify some landforms and their evolutionary stages in Section 3 Geological and Morphological Setting.

Thauer (1954) used the erosional landforms which he called wide valleys and V-shaped valley incised into the first mentioned ones for his age classification of the landscape.

4. I suggest to place Part 2 Methodology after Part 3. Geological and Geomorphological setting.

Has been re-arranged according to the reviewer´s suggestions

5. There are too much figures in this manuscript, it is suggested that some figures should be grouped, for example, fig.4a-w. It is also suggested to put the letters a-w in the squares in the fig.4 out of the figure border, for there are too many letters in this figure.

To support the discussion all figures are necessary; to squeeze them in one or two figures would jeopardize the readability of them. The letters have been removed from the cross section to a position outside the image and added as “new figures”

Reviewer 2

TITLE: Compositional and Numerical Geomorphology Along a 2 Basement-Foreland Transition, SE Germany, with Special 3 Reference to Landscape-Forming Indices and Parameters in 4 Genetic and Applied Terrain Analyses

AUTHORS: Dill Harald G., Buzatu Andrei, Balaban Sorin-Ionut and Kleyer Christopher

In my opinion, while the work contains a substantial amount of data and analysis, it lacks proper organization. The text does not guide the reader along a clear and defined path, making it challenging to follow. It would be helpful if the starting data, the scientific assumptions underlying the analyses, and the final results were presented more clearly. I find the work very interesting, particularly due to its approach. However, I encountered several difficulties in following the text, often getting lost among the figures, acronyms, and numbers. I believe a revision is necessary to enhance its readability.

Here are some suggestions for the authors.

Abstract

In my opinion, the abstract lacks coherence with the typical purpose of an abstract. Presenting acronyms and abbreviations such as VeSival, VaSlAnalti, and VaSlAnnorm without sufficient explanation is both reductive and unappealing. I suggest rewriting the abstract, especially considering that it closely resembles the conclusions. The correct acronym is “Landscape-Forming Indices” (LFI)

The abstract was re-written

Abstract: The Münchberg Gneiss Complex (Central European Variscides, Germany) is separated by a deep-seated lineamentary fault zone, the Franconian Lineamentary Fault Zone from its Mesozoic foreland. The study area offers an insight into a great variety of landforms created by fluvial and mass wasting processes together with their bedrocks covering the full range from  unmetamorphosed sediments to high-grade regionally metamorphic rocks. It renders the region an ideal place to conduct a study of compositional and numerical geomorphology and their landscape-forming indices and parameters. The landforms under consideration are sculptured out of the bedrocks (erosional landforms) and overlain by depositional landforms which are discussed by means of numerical landform indices (LFI) all of which are coined for the first time in the current paper. They are designed to be suitable for applied geosciences such as extractive/economic  geology as well as environmental geology.  The erosional landform series are subdivided into three categories: (1) the landscape roughness indices, e.g., VeSi_val (Vertical Sinuosity - Valley of landform series) and the VaSlAn_alti (Variation of Slope Angle altitude) which are used for a 1^st order  classification of landscapes into relief generations. The 2^nd order classification LFI are devoted to the material properties of the landforms´ bedrocks, such as the rock strength (VeSi_lith) and the bedrock anisotropy (VaSlAn_norm). The 3^rd order scheme describes the hydrography as to its  vertical  changes by the inclination of the talweg and the different types of  knickpoints (IncTal_lith/grad ) and horizontal sinuosity (HoSi_lith/grad). The study area is subjected to tripartite zonation into the headwater zone, synonymous with the paleoplain which undergoes some dissection at its edge, the step-fault plain representative of the track zone which undergoes widespread fluvial piracy, and the foreland plains which act as an intermediate sedimentary trap named the deposition zone. The area can be described in space and time with these landform indices reflecting fluvial and mass wasting processes operative in four different stages (around 17 Ma, 6 to 4 Ma, < 1.7 Ma, and < 0.4 Ma. The various groups of LFI are a function of  landscape maturity (pre-mature , mature , super-mature). The depositional landforms are numerically defined in the same way and only differ from each other by their subscripts. Their set of LFI is a mirror image of the composition of depositional landforms in relation to their grain size. The leading part of the acronym such as QuantSan_heav and QuantGrav_lith refers to the process of quantification, the second part to the grain size such as sand and gravel and the subscript to the material such as heavy minerals or lithological fragments. The three numerical indices applicable t depositional landforms are a direct measurement of the hydrodynamic and gravity driven conditions of the fluvial and mass wasting processes using the granulometry, grain morphology and situmetry (clast orientation).Together with the previous compositional indices the latter directly translate into the provenance analysis which can be used for environmental analyses and as a tool for mineral exploration. It creates a network between numerical geomorphology, geomorphometry and the E&E issue disciplines (economic/extractive geology vs, environmental geology). The linguistic of the LFI adopted in this publication is designed so as to be open for individual amendments by the reader. An easy adaptation to different landform suites worldwide, irrespective of their climatic conditions, geodynamic setting and age of formation is feasible due to the use of a software and a database available on a global basis.

 

LINE 25-27 “The LFI is  used during mapping of relief generations in the field for genetic purposes and in applied geomorphology while bridging the gap into extractive and environmental geology.”

Unclear sentence. I suggest remove the sentence.

Deleted from the present text in R1

1. Introduction

LINE 106 AND LINE 110 TABLE 1 FIGURE 1, 2, 3

TABLE 1 is presented first of figures 1, 2 and 3. In my opinion, the figures lack clear explanations in the text where they are presented. The explanations presented in the captions should be included in a descriptive text about the situations depicted.

The entire suggestion is met with by a re-arrangement

Figure 1 provides an overview of the geological setting from the Mesozoic Foreland to the high-grade regionally metamorphosed rocks of the Münchberg Gneiss Complex both of which are separated from each other by the deep-seated lineamentary fault zone of the “Fränkische Linie”.

 

A close-up view of the lithology exposed in this foreland-basement transition zone is displayed together with sampling sites in Figure 2. A close-up view of the lithology exposed in this foreland-basement transition zone is displayed together with sampling sites in Figure 2.

 

Fig. 3a, Table 1). The so-called “washboard landscapes” is represented by the South German Scarpland and has been studied by different geoscientists (Hüttner and Schmidt-Kaler, 2003; McCann, 2008a;  Voigt et al., 2008; Bachmann et al., 2010; Berger, 2010; Schirmer, 2010; Dill et al., 2020a, Ring and Bolhar, 2020). It is a series of homoclinal strata made of limestones, sandstone, and claystones moderately dipping towards the basement turning stepwise into a series of hogbacks as they are approaching the deep-seated lineamentary fault zone of the “Fränkische Linie”. Lithologically, the different resistance to weathering and erosion and hydrographically the strike streams are the main reasons for this typical landscape in the basement-foreland border zone.

 

Tables 1a is an introduction into the key topic of the current study providing an overview of the terminology, definition and application of these landscape-forming indices while Table 1b is a presentation of the numerical range of the 14 landscape-forming indices in relation to the landforms and landform series under consideration. Moreover, the reader is made familiar with the topographic and lithological basics of the study area.  

 

In Figure 3d I did not find the cross-section positions, as reported in the capture of Figure 4 (LINE 168)

Corrected (Fig. 3g)

LINE 170  It is the landscape roughness index of regional scale (for more information see text)

Where these information are presented in the text?

Yes

I suggest removing all figures and Table 1 from the Introduction, as they are clearly explained in the subsequent sections.

The figures and chapters 1, 2, and 3 have been newly arranged and the figures 1, 2, and 3 have been re-arranged accordingly. Only binary Table 1 has been placed at the end of the introduction because it is a key element of the entire text heralding the various indices in the following sections.

3. Geological and Geomorphological Setting

I suggest moving this part as 2.

Has been done as it also has been requested by reviewer1

We have considered all points raised by the two reviewers and implement their comments point-by-point.

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for the constructive comments and the academic editor for the handling of our paper

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

TITLE: Compositional and Numerical Geomorphology Along a 2 Basement-Foreland Transition, SE Germany, with Special 3 Reference to Landscape-Forming Indices and Parameters in 4 Genetic and Applied Terrain Analyses

AUTHORS: Dill Harald G., Buzatu Andrei, Balaban Sorin-Ionut and Kleyer Christopher

In my opinion, while the work contains a substantial amount of data and analysis, it lacks proper organization. The text does not guide the reader along a clear and defined path, making it challenging to follow. It would be helpful if the starting data, the scientific assumptions underlying the analyses, and the final results were presented more clearly. I find the work very interesting, particularly due to its approach. However, I encountered several difficulties in following the text, often getting lost among the figures, acronyms, and numbers. I believe a revision is necessary to enhance its readability.

Here are some suggestions for the authors.

Abstract

In my opinion, the abstract lacks coherence with the typical purpose of an abstract. Presenting acronyms and abbreviations such as VeSival, VaSlAnalti, and VaSlAnnorm without sufficient explanation is both reductive and unappealing. I suggest rewriting the abstract, especially considering that it closely resembles the conclusions. The correct acronym is “Landscape-Forming Indices” (LFI)

LINE 25-27 “The LFI is  used during mapping of relief generations in the field for genetic purposes and in applied geomorphology while bridging the gap into extractive and environmental geology.”

Unclear sentence. I suggest remove the sentence.

1.       Introduction

LINE 106 AND LINE 110 TABLE 1 FIGURE 1, 2, 3

TABLE 1 is presented first of figures 1, 2 and 3. In my opinion, the figures lack clear explanations in the text where they are presented. The explanations presented in the captions should be included in a descriptive text about the situations depicted. In Figure 3d I did not found the cross-section positions, as reported in the capture of Figure 4 (LINE 168)

LINE 170  It is the landscape roughness index of regional scale (for more information see text)

Where these information are presented in the text?

I suggest removing all figures and Table 1 from the Introduction, as they are clearly explained in the subsequent sections.

3.       Geological and Geomorphological Setting

I suggest moving this part as 2.

Author Response

All changes marked in the text in yellow.

Reviewer 1

The classification of landforms is a long-standing research topic in the field of geomorphology. This manuscript first proposes the numerical landform indices (LFl),  and the LFI is used during mapping of relief generations in the field for genetic purposes and in applied geomorphology. This study integrates a large amount of field and laboratory analysis data, conducts detailed research on the geomorphological composition and classification of the study area, proposes innovative insights, and recommends acceptance and publication of this manuscript.

However, some small opinions and suggestions hope to be modified:

1. Table 1 should be placed at the back, as a large number of geomorphic parameters and terms appear first without detailed definitions, highlighting the poor structure of the article.
2. All terrain parameters, such as the Vertical Sinuosity valley (VeSival) index, Variation of Slope Angle altitude (VaSlAnalti) index, Inclusion of the Talweg Methodology plus Gradient (IncTallith/grad), Quantification Fluvial Mass Wasting index (Quantflu/mas), etc. It is recommended to provide detailed definitions in the second section of Methodology and provide illustrations of the calculation methods.

RESPONS:

To respond to point 1 and 2 together.

I tried to comply with the reviewer´s suggestions in that I split Table 1 into a Table 1a which is a general overview of all indices and how the technical terms were created. As the general and the special part named Table 1a and 1,b respectively, belong together.

To form some kind of an arch over results and discussion the second pillar to Table 1a/b is created as some sort of a graphical conclusion (see new Fig. 17)

3. In Section 5.2 of The Paleoplain and Its Dissection, it is suggested to classify some landforms and their evolutionary stages in Section 3 Geological and Morphological Setting.

Thauer (1954) used the erosional landforms which he called wide valleys and V-shaped valley incised into the first mentioned ones for his age classification of the landscape.

4. I suggest to place Part 2 Methodology after Part 3. Geological and Geomorphological setting.

Has been re-arranged according to the reviewer´s suggestions

5. There are too much figures in this manuscript, it is suggested that some figures should be grouped, for example, fig.4a-w. It is also suggested to put the letters a-w in the squares in the fig.4 out of the figure border, for there are too many letters in this figure.

To support the discussion all figures are necessary; to squeeze them in one or two figures would jeopardize the readability of them. The letters have been removed from the cross section to a position outside the image and added as “new figures”

 

Reviewer 2

TITLE: Compositional and Numerical Geomorphology Along a 2 Basement-Foreland Transition, SE Germany, with Special 3 Reference to Landscape-Forming Indices and Parameters in 4 Genetic and Applied Terrain Analyses

AUTHORS: Dill Harald G., Buzatu Andrei, Balaban Sorin-Ionut and Kleyer Christopher

In my opinion, while the work contains a substantial amount of data and analysis, it lacks proper organization. The text does not guide the reader along a clear and defined path, making it challenging to follow. It would be helpful if the starting data, the scientific assumptions underlying the analyses, and the final results were presented more clearly. I find the work very interesting, particularly due to its approach. However, I encountered several difficulties in following the text, often getting lost among the figures, acronyms, and numbers. I believe a revision is necessary to enhance its readability.

Here are some suggestions for the authors.

Abstract

In my opinion, the abstract lacks coherence with the typical purpose of an abstract. Presenting acronyms and abbreviations such as VeSival, VaSlAnalti, and VaSlAnnorm without sufficient explanation is both reductive and unappealing. I suggest rewriting the abstract, especially considering that it closely resembles the conclusions. The correct acronym is “Landscape-Forming Indices” (LFI)

The abstract was re-written

Abstract: The Münchberg Gneiss Complex (Central European Variscides, Germany) is separated by a deep-seated lineamentary fault zone, the Franconian Lineamentary Fault Zone from its Mesozoic foreland. The study area offers an insight into a great variety of landforms created by fluvial and mass wasting processes together with their bedrocks covering the full range from  unmetamorphosed sediments to high-grade regionally metamorphic rocks. It renders the region an ideal place to conduct a study of compositional and numerical geomorphology and their landscape-forming indices and parameters. The landforms under consideration are sculptured out of the bedrocks (erosional landforms) and overlain by depositional landforms which are discussed by means of numerical landform indices (LFI) all of which are coined for the first time in the current paper. They are designed to be suitable for applied geosciences such as extractive/economic  geology as well as environmental geology.  The erosional landform series are subdivided into three categories: (1) the landscape roughness indices, e.g., VeSi_val (Vertical Sinuosity - Valley of landform series) and the VaSlAn_alti (Variation of Slope Angle altitude) which are used for a 1^st order  classification of landscapes into relief generations. The 2^nd order classification LFI are devoted to the material properties of the landforms´ bedrocks, such as the rock strength (VeSi_lith) and the bedrock anisotropy (VaSlAn_norm). The 3^rd order scheme describes the hydrography as to its  vertical  changes by the inclination of the talweg and the different types of  knickpoints (IncTal_lith/grad ) and horizontal sinuosity (HoSi_lith/grad). The study area is subjected to tripartite zonation into the headwater zone, synonymous with the paleoplain which undergoes some dissection at its edge, the step-fault plain representative of the track zone which undergoes widespread fluvial piracy, and the foreland plains which act as an intermediate sedimentary trap named the deposition zone. The area can be described in space and time with these landform indices reflecting fluvial and mass wasting processes operative in four different stages (around 17 Ma, 6 to 4 Ma, < 1.7 Ma, and < 0.4 Ma. The various groups of LFI are a function of  landscape maturity (pre-mature , mature , super-mature). The depositional landforms are numerically defined in the same way and only differ from each other by their subscripts. Their set of LFI is a mirror image of the composition of depositional landforms in relation to their grain size. The leading part of the acronym such as QuantSan_heav and QuantGrav_lith refers to the process of quantification, the second part to the grain size such as sand and gravel and the subscript to the material such as heavy minerals or lithological fragments. The three numerical indices applicable t depositional landforms are a direct measurement of the hydrodynamic and gravity driven conditions of the fluvial and mass wasting processes using the granulometry, grain morphology and situmetry (clast orientation).Together with the previous compositional indices the latter directly translate into the provenance analysis which can be used for environmental analyses and as a tool for mineral exploration. It creates a network between numerical geomorphology, geomorphometry and the E&E issue disciplines (economic/extractive geology vs, environmental geology). The linguistic of the LFI adopted in this publication is designed so as to be open for individual amendments by the reader. An easy adaptation to different landform suites worldwide, irrespective of their climatic conditions, geodynamic setting and age of formation is feasible due to the use of a software and a database available on a global basis.

 

LINE 25-27 “The LFI is  used during mapping of relief generations in the field for genetic purposes and in applied geomorphology while bridging the gap into extractive and environmental geology.”

Unclear sentence. I suggest remove the sentence.

Deleted from the present text in R1

1. Introduction

LINE 106 AND LINE 110 TABLE 1 FIGURE 1, 2, 3

TABLE 1 is presented first of figures 1, 2 and 3. In my opinion, the figures lack clear explanations in the text where they are presented. The explanations presented in the captions should be included in a descriptive text about the situations depicted.

The entire suggestion is met with by a re-arrangement

Figure 1 provides an overview of the geological setting from the Mesozoic Foreland to the high-grade regionally metamorphosed rocks of the Münchberg Gneiss Complex both of which are separated from each other by the deep-seated lineamentary fault zone of the “Fränkische Linie”.

 

A close-up view of the lithology exposed in this foreland-basement transition zone is displayed together with sampling sites in Figure 2. A close-up view of the lithology exposed in this foreland-basement transition zone is displayed together with sampling sites in Figure 2.

 

Fig. 3a, Table 1). The so-called “washboard landscapes” is represented by the South German Scarpland and has been studied by different geoscientists (Hüttner and Schmidt-Kaler, 2003; McCann, 2008a;  Voigt et al., 2008; Bachmann et al., 2010; Berger, 2010; Schirmer, 2010; Dill et al., 2020a, Ring and Bolhar, 2020). It is a series of homoclinal strata made of limestones, sandstone, and claystones moderately dipping towards the basement turning stepwise into a series of hogbacks as they are approaching the deep-seated lineamentary fault zone of the “Fränkische Linie”. Lithologically, the different resistance to weathering and erosion and hydrographically the strike streams are the main reasons for this typical landscape in the basement-foreland border zone.

 

Tables 1a is an introduction into the key topic of the current study providing an overview of the terminology, definition and application of these landscape-forming indices while Table 1b is a presentation of the numerical range of the 14 landscape-forming indices in relation to the landforms and landform series under consideration. Moreover, the reader is made familiar with the topographic and lithological basics of the study area.  

 

In Figure 3d I did not find the cross-section positions, as reported in the capture of Figure 4 (LINE 168)

Corrected (Fig. 3g)

LINE 170  It is the landscape roughness index of regional scale (for more information see text)

Where these information are presented in the text?

Yes

I suggest removing all figures and Table 1 from the Introduction, as they are clearly explained in the subsequent sections.

The figures and chapters 1, 2, and 3 have been newly arranged and the figures 1, 2, and 3 have been re-arranged accordingly. Only binary Table 1 has been placed at the end of the introduction because it is a key element of the entire text heralding the various indices in the following sections.

3. Geological and Geomorphological Setting

I suggest moving this part as 2.

Has been done as it also has been requested by reviewer1

We have considered all points raised by the two reviewers and implement their comments point-by-point.

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for the constructive comments and the academic editor for the handling of our paper