Limitations of Drawdown Doline Development on Mountainous Glaciokarst

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the relationship between the occurrence of drawdown dolines and the morphometric characteristics of selected karrens. Give an acceptable explanation that on the bare surface of the rocks in the glaciokarst, the formation of a piezometric level, and thus the development of drawdown dolines, could not occur.

The introduction is too long. Although there is a tendency to clarify the conditions of karren formation in order to bring them in connection with the conditions of drawdown dolines, the introduction is too broad. In some parts, it looks more like a textbook, and there are also unnecessary repetitions, for example: „Karren of percolation origin develop by percolating waters, while karren of flow origin are formed by flowing waters.” L108-109

The methods are poorly explained.

The following are missing: (1) specifying the locations of the research and explaining the context of those locations, (2) the reasons for determining the selected locations, (3) the basic principle of performing measurements and (4) to what extent the selection of locations (because it is only about samples) affects the final results, interpretation and conclusions.

The number of investigated locations is not clearly stated. First it is stated that there are three, but that for two are given description. Data for 5 locations are listed in the tables. I'm sure it all makes sense, but it is necessary to explain more clearly what was done at which location.

Related to the unclear presentation of research locations is the unclear structure of the presentation of results. Only the results are not questionable and are well interpreted in the discussion, but their presentation in the Results chapter is not very clear. My impression is that these are the results of several different studies that have not been presented here in one common systematized presentation.

L358 – I think it's a reference [36]

The conclusion is good and well founded. However, it seems to me that there is a certain mismatch between the conclusion and the question posed in the title. The question from the title would be determining “the upper limit”, and the conclusion gives the answer - "No drawdown dolines develop on the bare surfaces of glaciokarsts with bedding planes." But the answer does not mention the "upper limit". I suggest adjusting the title. For example: "Limitations of Drawdown Valley Development on Mountainous Glaciokarsts" or something else.

Finally, although the paper seems to me to be very important in the research of karst morphology and development, I am not sure if this paper belongs thematically in this journal.

I found no support in Aims & Scope that this paper belongs to this journal. Although the work explores the morphogenesis of glaciokarst, the work is not directly related to glaciers, but to their indirect influence on karstification and the karst process. Please, let the Editor judge.

Author Response

1. I modified the consequences with better explanations on the development of drawdown dolines, but I also refer to it in the Discussion.
2. I reduced the Introduction part, but taking the other reviewer’s recommendations into considerations, I had to put new parts into it.

• – Research sites are described.
• I explained why I had chosen these areas.
• I described the principle of measurements.

3. The relationship between the sample site and the conclusion was also mentioned.
4. The number of research sites is good, there are no mistakes. I studied the number of karren features of three areas (Table 2). Table 3 includes the size (width and depth) of karren features of 2 areas in a way that from one area the data of 3 rinnenkarren and the data of 2 rinnenkarren of the other area were given. The caption of the table was modified.
5. The results are clear, but I modified the text for better understanding which results are from different sample sites.
6. I deleted and modified some parts in Discussion for better understanding.
7. There are data from previous studies, but they were processed and classified. Therefore, the source of data is indicated at Table 1 as well as the source of Figs 12-14.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a very interesting paper on glaciokarst. The science is very good and this is an important contribution to karst science, especially glaciokarst geomorphology. I have a few minor edits that I recommend and these are listed below.

 

Lines 24-25. You state that “In this study it is investigated why there are no solution (drawdown) dolines on the 24 bare surfaces of high mountains (glaciokarsts)”. However, you clearly have drawdown dolines in glaciokarst and you show a photo from the Maglič Mountains which were extensively glaciated in the Pleistocene.

 

On this matter I have a problem with your temporal relationship with processes. Limate has changed dramatically between the Late Pleistocene cold stage and the current Holocene interglacial. Thus the snowline and treelines would have varied through time and your altitudinal zones (Figure 2) would move through time. Thus, what we see in the landscape is partly reflecting what processes are acting today but largely what processes were acting in the past, especially with regard to glaciokarst. I think some note of this should be made. You do this partly in lines 93-103, but more could be said about paleo-glaciokarst.

 

Another relevant issue is how karst affects glaciation and vice-versa. For example see page 249 in Hughes et al. (2007) where they wrote “The relationship between karst development and glaciation is likely to have been two-way, with pre-existing karst influencing glacier development and glaciation influencing karstic forms”

Hughes, P.D., Gibbard, P.L. and Woodward, J.C., 2007. Geological controls on Pleistocene glaciation and cirque form in Greece. Geomorphology, 88(3-4), pp.242-253.

 

Figure 2. “densiti” should be density

 

Figure 2. What does the pc mean in pckm2 in the scale bar?

Lines 70-75. You then acknowledge in this paragraph that drawdown dolines do exist above the treeline but “these features occur in clusters, they do not develop in great density, their distribution is sporadic”. I found this a bit confusing in the messaging.

Line 148. pCo2 needs a big O

Lines 189-200. You mention cuesta surfaces of glacial erosion origin. In glaciokarst isn’t this terrain known as “Schichttreppenkarst”. Schichttreppenkarst is defined as cuesta-like pavement (Bögli 1964 – which you already cite). Another reference that is useful for your paper is Telbisz et al. (2019) and other papers by the same author:

Telbisz, T., Stergiou, C.L., Mindszenty, A. and Chatzipetros, A., 2019. Karst features and related social processes in the region of the Vikos Gorge and Tymphi Mountain (Northern Pindos National Park, Greece). Acta Carsologica, 48(1).

 

I would expect to see more references to the work of your colleague Telbisz as his previous work links very closely with your excellent new paper.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is reasonably well-written (sometimes the style could be improved – get it checked by someone independent of the paper for smoothness of style – I did not correct your English, but overall it is good to very good with a few minor weaknesses).  

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. Lines 24-25: I do not state that there are no drawdown dolines, but I only state that there are no drawdown dolines on bare surfaces.
2. I modified the description of the relationship between climate change and karstification.
3. The relationship between karstification and glacial erosion is also described.
4. 2 was corrected.
5. Lines 70-75: I modified it, I hope it can be better understood.
6. I mention the definition of Schichttreppenkarst and put in a new reference.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor, dear author,

After a close inspection of the new version of the work, it is evident that the author put a lot of effort into finishing the manuscripts.

The work makes an important contribution to the understanding of the development of karst geomorphology under the influence of mountain glaciation. I suggest that the work be published in this form.

The only change I suggest is a small change to the title. Although the author accepted my proposal to change the title, I later noticed that there was a mistake in my proposal.

The word "valley" should be replaced by the word "dolines".

The final version of the title would then be:

"Limitations of Drawdown Dolines Development on Mountainous Glaciokarst"

I apologize to the editor and the author for introducing this confusion.

Author Response

I have corrected the title.