Scholarlink

<p>This comment assesses the anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) analysis by Lakshmi et al. (Magnetic fabrics of west coast dyke swarm from Deccan volcanic province, Maharashtra, India) on dykes from the Deccan Volcanic Province (DVP). Key concerns include uncertainties in magnetic mineral classification, limited integration of mineralogical observations with AMS data, and the use of uncorrected K₁ inclinations for fabric and flow interpretations without considering regional structural tilting, such as that associated with the Panvel Flexure. Inconsistencies in the orthogonality of principal axes and the absence of clearly defined criteria for magnetic fabric classification further complicate interpretation. Additionally, interpretations regarding subsurface magma chambers are not substantiated by independent geochemical or geophysical evidence. To address these issues, we developed a tilt-correction routine and present both uncorrected and tilt-corrected AMS data for 33 dykes in Table&#xa0;1 of our comment paper. This table demonstrates the impact of structural tilting on K₁ inclinations, highlights discrepancies in dyke classification, and provides a methodological reference for best practices in AMS analysis. We recommend reassessment using tilt-corrected data and greater integration with structural, petrological, and mineralogical constraints to enhance the geological interpretation of the DVP dyke swarm.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comments on ‘Magnetic fabrics of west coast dyke swarm from Deccan Volcanic Province’ by Lakshmi et al. (Environ. Earth Sci. 83, 465, August 2024)

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月17日

查看全文
  • N. Basavaiah,
  • K. V. V. Satyanarayana,
  • J. N. Prasad

摘要

This comment assesses the anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) analysis by Lakshmi et al. (Magnetic fabrics of west coast dyke swarm from Deccan volcanic province, Maharashtra, India) on dykes from the Deccan Volcanic Province (DVP). Key concerns include uncertainties in magnetic mineral classification, limited integration of mineralogical observations with AMS data, and the use of uncorrected K₁ inclinations for fabric and flow interpretations without considering regional structural tilting, such as that associated with the Panvel Flexure. Inconsistencies in the orthogonality of principal axes and the absence of clearly defined criteria for magnetic fabric classification further complicate interpretation. Additionally, interpretations regarding subsurface magma chambers are not substantiated by independent geochemical or geophysical evidence. To address these issues, we developed a tilt-correction routine and present both uncorrected and tilt-corrected AMS data for 33 dykes in Table 1 of our comment paper. This table demonstrates the impact of structural tilting on K₁ inclinations, highlights discrepancies in dyke classification, and provides a methodological reference for best practices in AMS analysis. We recommend reassessment using tilt-corrected data and greater integration with structural, petrological, and mineralogical constraints to enhance the geological interpretation of the DVP dyke swarm.