Reply to: Comment on “Apatite Fission Track and (U–Th)/He data from Fennoscandia: An example of underestimation of fission track annealing in apatite” by B. W. H. Hendriks and T. F. Redfield

Abstract

In the absence of any remnant sedimentary rocks or other tangible geological evidence, Apatite Fission Track (AFT) data from Fennoscandia have been interpreted in terms of deep burial beneath a Caledonian foreland basin. We rejected this interpretation of AFT data from central Finland in 2005, in favor of one incorporating radiation enhanced annealing over geologically extended periods of time. The physics underlying our hypothesis have been discussed extensively during the past two decades by various peer-reviewed studies. In this Reply we contend that, in their Comment, Larson et al. incorrectly interpret published geological data to support deep burial beneath an aerially extensive Caledonian foreland basin. We show the Avalonia–Baltica tectonic collision better explains data that intimate slightly elevated paleo-temperatures and paleo-pressures in southern Sweden. We demonstrate that most of the geological data cited by Larson et al. are geographically isolated from the area we discussed in our 2005 contribution, and thus completely unrelated to our conclusions. We consider the Comment by Larson et al. as unfounded, and consequently uphold our original interpretation.