Age constraints on surface deformation recorded by fossil shorelines at Cape Range, Western Australia: Reply

Michael R Sandstrom,E Troy Rasbury,Maureen E Raymo,Yue Cai,Kathleen M Wooton,Milo Barham,Michael J O’Leary

doi:10.1130/b36330.1

Abstract

Whitney et al. (2021) challenge our conclusions about rates of deformation and amount of uplift along the Cape Range, Western Australia, particularly the elevation constraints we place on the last interglacial shoreline along the northern half of Cape Range. They selectively focus almost entirely on the northern half of Cape Range, completely omitting our extensive analysis of the southern section, which provides the bulk of our paleo−sea-level interpretations. They also raise concerns about some of the nomenclature and methodology used. We thank them for the opportunity to clarify our results on the minor section of our paper they take issue to, and address their concerns below point by point.

Highlights

Whitney et al (2021) challenge our conclusions about rates of deformation and amount of uplift along the Cape Range, Western Australia, the elevation constraints we place on the last interglacial shoreline along the northern half of Cape Range
Ever use the specific term “tectonic uplift” in our paper, despite what is suggested in Whitney et al (2021)—i.e., “tectonic uplift” appears 18 times in their comment
We know with high confidence that longlinked to absolute “tectonic uplift.”

Summary

Introduction

Whitney et al (2021) challenge our conclusions about rates of deformation and amount of uplift along the Cape Range, Western Australia, the elevation constraints we place on the last interglacial shoreline along the northern half of Cape Range. We never use the term “fold apex” as claimed by Whitney et al (2021), but refer descriptively to the central apex of the anticline and apex of specific terrace features for their graphical representations where the highest elevation points are plotted, for both shorelines and Cape Range in general

Results

Conclusion