Comment on Investigating the origin and dynamics of Carolina Bays by Mark Lundine and Arthur Trembanis [Marine Geology 480 (2025)]

IF 2.6 3区地球科学 Q2 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Marine Geology Pub Date : 2025-04-15 DOI:10.1016/j.margeo.2025.107556

Michael Ernest Davias, Thomas H.S. Harris

{"title":"Comment on Investigating the origin and dynamics of Carolina Bays by Mark Lundine and Arthur Trembanis [Marine Geology 480 (2025)]","authors":"Michael Ernest Davias, Thomas H.S. Harris","doi":"10.1016/j.margeo.2025.107556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The paper entitled Investigating the origin and dynamics of Carolina Bays by Mark Lundine and Arthur Trembanis, published in Marine Geology 480 [(2025) 107449] addresses the geomorphology of a collection of closed ovoid basins located on the Atlantic Coastal Plain of the USA. While we respect the excellent quality of the effort by Lundine and Trembanis on this topic, we offer a comment on their review of the runnable mental model presented in Davias and Harris (2022), and the companion paper Harris (2022). While there are several aspects of their review that we accept as debatable, central tenets of our hypothesis were overlooked. Primarily, Lundine and Trembanis (2025) entirely misrepresents our proposal as one which utilizes a mechanism of excavation of these shallow basins by secondary impacts into preexisting unconsolidated sediment. As clearly noted in the title, abstract and text of Davias and Harris (2022) we relate an interdisciplinary hypothesis that the basins were created within that sedimentary deposit during the catastrophic deposition of that sediment and manifested as cavitation artifacts at the surface. Our paper suggests a straightforward task to falsify: constrain the deposition date, method and source of the expansive conformal blanket we describe. Rather than being “thin ephemeral landforms” these basins should be viewed as robust structures, expressing to the surface and visible in our repository of LiDAR imagery despite having entire cities built across them. The lack of a prominent impact crater within the Great Lakes region of the USA is also addressed briefly here, as Lundine and Trembanis (2025) raised an objection. Among our supporting argument for such an impact is data from suborbital modeling of the Australasian tektites, combined with a tool kit for public use in Harris (2022).</div><div>The extensive runnable mental model of Davias and Harris (2025) address many of the concerns raised in Lundine and Trembanis (2025). We make no attempt here to defend the full interdisciplinary hypothesis as presented in the 30 pages of Davias and Harris (2022).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18229,"journal":{"name":"Marine Geology","volume":"485 ","pages":"Article 107556"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Geology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025322725000817","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper entitled Investigating the origin and dynamics of Carolina Bays by Mark Lundine and Arthur Trembanis, published in Marine Geology 480 [(2025) 107449] addresses the geomorphology of a collection of closed ovoid basins located on the Atlantic Coastal Plain of the USA. While we respect the excellent quality of the effort by Lundine and Trembanis on this topic, we offer a comment on their review of the runnable mental model presented in Davias and Harris (2022), and the companion paper Harris (2022). While there are several aspects of their review that we accept as debatable, central tenets of our hypothesis were overlooked. Primarily, Lundine and Trembanis (2025) entirely misrepresents our proposal as one which utilizes a mechanism of excavation of these shallow basins by secondary impacts into preexisting unconsolidated sediment. As clearly noted in the title, abstract and text of Davias and Harris (2022) we relate an interdisciplinary hypothesis that the basins were created within that sedimentary deposit during the catastrophic deposition of that sediment and manifested as cavitation artifacts at the surface. Our paper suggests a straightforward task to falsify: constrain the deposition date, method and source of the expansive conformal blanket we describe. Rather than being “thin ephemeral landforms” these basins should be viewed as robust structures, expressing to the surface and visible in our repository of LiDAR imagery despite having entire cities built across them. The lack of a prominent impact crater within the Great Lakes region of the USA is also addressed briefly here, as Lundine and Trembanis (2025) raised an objection. Among our supporting argument for such an impact is data from suborbital modeling of the Australasian tektites, combined with a tool kit for public use in Harris (2022).

The extensive runnable mental model of Davias and Harris (2025) address many of the concerns raised in Lundine and Trembanis (2025). We make no attempt here to defend the full interdisciplinary hypothesis as presented in the 30 pages of Davias and Harris (2022).

查看原文本刊更多论文

Mark Lundine和Arthur Trembanis关于调查卡罗莱纳湾的起源和动力学的评论[海洋地质480 (2025)]

Mark Lundine和Arthur Trembanis发表在《海洋地质》480[(2025)107449]上的题为《调查卡罗莱纳湾的起源和动力学》的论文论述了位于美国大西洋沿岸平原的一组封闭卵状盆地的地貌。虽然我们尊重Lundine和Trembanis在这一主题上所做的卓越努力，但我们对他们对davis和Harris（2022）及其同伴论文Harris（2022）中提出的可运行心智模型的回顾提出了评论。虽然他们的评论中有几个方面我们认为是有争议的，但我们假设的核心原则被忽视了。首先，Lundine和Trembanis（2025）完全歪曲了我们的建议，认为我们的建议利用了一种机制，即通过对先前存在的松散沉积物的二次撞击来挖掘这些浅层盆地。正如戴维斯和哈里斯（2022）的标题、摘要和文本中明确指出的那样，我们提出了一个跨学科的假设，即盆地是在沉积物的灾难性沉积期间在沉积沉积物中形成的，并在地表表现为空化人工产物。我们的论文提出了一个简单的任务来伪造：限制沉积日期，方法和来源的膨胀适形毯子我们描述。这些盆地不应被视为“薄而短暂的地貌”，而应被视为坚固的结构，尽管整个城市都建在上面，但它们仍能在我们的激光雷达图像库中显示出来。由于Lundine和Trembanis（2025）提出了反对意见，这里也简要地讨论了美国大湖地区缺乏一个突出的陨石坑。我们支持这种影响的论据之一是来自澳大利亚陨石亚轨道建模的数据，以及哈里斯（2022）的公共使用工具包。戴维斯和哈里斯（2025）的广泛可运行的心智模型解决了Lundine和Trembanis（2025）提出的许多问题。在这里，我们并不试图捍卫戴维斯和哈里斯（2022）的30页书中提出的完整的跨学科假设。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Marine Geology 地学-地球科学综合

CiteScore

6.10

自引率

6.90%

发文量

175

审稿时长

21.9 weeks

期刊介绍： Marine Geology is the premier international journal on marine geological processes in the broadest sense. We seek papers that are comprehensive, interdisciplinary and synthetic that will be lasting contributions to the field. Although most papers are based on regional studies, they must demonstrate new findings of international significance. We accept papers on subjects as diverse as seafloor hydrothermal systems, beach dynamics, early diagenesis, microbiological studies in sediments, palaeoclimate studies and geophysical studies of the seabed. We encourage papers that address emerging new fields, for example the influence of anthropogenic processes on coastal/marine geology and coastal/marine geoarchaeology. We insist that the papers are concerned with the marine realm and that they deal with geology: with rocks, sediments, and physical and chemical processes affecting them. Papers should address scientific hypotheses: highly descriptive data compilations or papers that deal only with marine management and risk assessment should be submitted to other journals. Papers on laboratory or modelling studies must demonstrate direct relevance to marine processes or deposits. The primary criteria for acceptance of papers is that the science is of high quality, novel, significant, and of broad international interest.