Reply to comments by Bourgois et al. (2019) on: “Glacial lake evolution and Atlantic-Pacific drainage reversals during deglaciation of the Patagonia Ice Sheet”

• Published in: Quaternary Science Reviews
• Main Authors: Thorndycraft, Varyl R., Bendle, Jacob M., Matthews, Ian P., Palmer, Adrian P., Benito, Gerardo, Davies, Bethan J., Sancho, Carlos, Pike, Joshua H., Martín, Julián R.V., Fabel, Derek, Medialdea, Alicia
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: unknown
• Published: Pergamon Press 2019
• Subjects: Glacial Lake; Pacific; Patagonia; Ice Sheet
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/247896; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.04.005

We welcome the comments of Bourgois et al. (2019) and the opportunity to debate geomorphology, geochronology and palaeoclimate during the Late Glacial Interglacial Transition (LGIT, ~18.0-8.0 ka) in the region of the Río Baker, central Patagonia. Bourgois et al. (2019) conclude that we have propagated inconsistencies in our proposed reconstruction of palaeolake evolution due to geomorphic analytical bias. However, in our view the empirical geomorphological data we have compiled over many field seasons has resulted in a data-rich (though still incomplete) relative chronology that enables us to evaluate inconsistencies in landscape interpretations from previously published geochronological datasets. We would argue that a geochronological bias, over any geomorphological bias, has represented the main reason for multiple landscape interpretations in this region. Indeed, the conflicting palaeolake evolution models published for the Río Baker basin (Turner et al. 2005; Bell, 2008; Hein et al., 2010; Bourgois et al., 2016; Glasser et al., 2016; Martinod et al., 2016) was a major impetus for our paper. These contrasting models were in part a result of the coincident publication of two separate geochronological datasets in 2016, one focused on optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of palaeolake landforms (Glasser et al., 2016), the other cosmogenic nuclide exposure ages (Bourgois et al., 2016). Both datasets provided updates on what we termed the Turner/Hein model in Thorndycraft et al. (2019), but as they did not have access to each other’s datasets they ended up with different landscape interpretations.