Reply to comment by Rob Westaway on “Review of tufa deposition and palaeohydrological conditions in the White Peak, Derbyshire, UK: implications for Quaternary landscape evolution.”

Abstract

We thank Westaway (2012) for his interesting discussion of the uplift rates derived from the Alport tufa and its geomorphological setting. In particular, Westaway (2012) questions the validity of the uplift rates that were presented within our original paper (Banks et al., 2012) and we welcome the opportunity to clarify this further. Analysis of his observations highlights the tentative nature of geological approaches to determining uplift rates in areas affected by both glacio-isostatic and tectonic processes. We therefore also welcome the opportunity to comment on the practicalities of determining uplift measurements from karst environments within the wider, long-term, tectonic evolution of the Peak District. To facilitate the discussion regarding the uplift rates determined from the Alport tufa and its geomorphological setting we have revised and updated Table 4 of Banks et al. (2012). Westaway (2012) makes reference to two of the cited incision rates (Table 4; Banks et al., 2012) that correspond with the late Ipswichian (MIS 5e) to present and the end of the Anglian (MIS 12) to present, then compares them with values that span the entire Quaternary. Banks et al. (2012) did not originally present an incision rate for the duration of the Quaternary and the assumptions regarding the elevations used in the calculations (Westaway, 2012) are incorrect. The time-averaged rate of incision for the entire Quaternary (Table 1) corresponds reasonably closely with the ∼0.06–0.07 mm a−1 calculated by Westaway (2012) from differences in the elevations of the tops of the tufas. It also corresponds with the post late-Miocene uplift rates (0.03–0.06 mm a−1) determined for the Peak District by Pound et al. (2012). The significant difference between these rates and the uplift rates (∼0.1–0.15 mm a−1) cited by [Westaway, 2009a] and [Westaway, 2012] warrants further consideration.