No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2016
In their comment, Wesselingh et al. say that pronounced glacioeustacy renders the detailed discussions about age intervals obsolete and that they fail to see the application of the Haq curves for age estimates in the Maassluis Formation can make much sense. We would argue the following:
- Eustacy and sediment supply are the driving forces behind sequence formation and configuration. As our model shows, the overall picture of the Pliocene/Pleistocene along our transect is one of an outbuilding system, going from open marine to terrestrial deposits, which is a classic sequence stratigraphic configuration.
- The lower part of the Maassluis Formation in the Noordwijk borehole lies below an unconformity and consists of open marine sediments as opposed to the coastal sediments of the upper part. Since it is the normal transition over a sequence boundary, there is reason to speculate about which sequences we are looking at here and what their age is. There is a large sedimentary wedge to the west of Noordwijk that is missing in the Noordwijk borehole.
- The glacial-interglacial cycles Meijer et al. (in press) refer to are likely to be better expressed in the coastal part of the formation, i.e. from ca. 2.55 Ma. This is also the part of the formation where micro-vertebrates will be found, not the (older) marine part. These cycles do not alter the overall sequence stratigraphic model, they add a climatic overprint of smaller sedimentary cycles.
You have
Access