Search

Integrated geographic modelling and simulation is a computational means to improve understanding of the environment. With the development of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and web technologies, it is possible to conduct open, extensible integrated geographic modelling across a network in which resources can be accessed and integrated, and further distributed geographic simulations can be performed. This open web-distributed modelling and simulation approach is likely to enhance the use of existing resources and can attract diverse participants. With this approach, participants from different physical locations or domains of expertise can perform comprehensive modelling and simulation tasks collaboratively. This paper reviews past integrated modelling and simulation systems, highlighting the associated development challenges when moving to an open web-distributed system. A conceptual framework is proposed to introduce a roadmap from a system design perspective, with potential use cases provided. The four components of this conceptual framework - a set of standards, a resource sharing environment, a collaborative integrated modelling environment, and a distributed simulation environment - are also discussed in detail with the goal of advancing this emerging field.

The article by Davies et al. discusses scientific studies on microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS). The sedimentary structures are caused by benthic microbes in clastic deposits and have the potential to fossilize. In the opinion of Davies et al., it may be problematic to distinguish MISS-like structures (e.g., ‘wrinkle structures’) from similar, but abiotic structures. Therefore, their article argues, there exists a need for an umbrella classification summarizing both biological and abiotic sedimentary structures. However, Davies et al.'s paper does not reflect a thorough understanding of the formation and preservation of MISS. More so, while the authors appreciate the benefit of geological field work, and petrological as well as geochemical laboratory sample analyses, their article appears to widely disregard that this scientific rigor is presented in studies on MISS. The lack of data make the classification by Davies et al. unsupported and difficult to use. It potentially confuses by producing multiple classification possibilities rather than a pragmatic organization, and it contributes an unnecessary terminological ballast to a research area that has progressed far beyond to the concepts that the paper by Davies et al. presents.

In their discussion paper, Sumegi & Gulyas (2021) expressed their concerns about our remarks regarding the reliability of malacothermometer-based July paleotemperature reconstructions for the Carpathian Basin as published in Obreht et al. (2019). We are content to see that our paper inspired the continuation of the discussion, however, we have some concerns about the criticism expressed by Sumegi and Gulyas (2021), which we in this reply address.

We discuss the new causative source model for the 1908 Messina Straits earthquake recently proposed by Barreca et al. (2021), where an aseismic slip of 1.13 m along a low-angle discontinuity, preceding the 1908 earthquake, have mechanically destabilized a set of overlying faults, therefore leading them to the rupture. The lack of significant variations of the relative sea level in the Messina harbor area, in the time period relevant for the levelling data (1907–1908) analyzed by Barreca et al., and at least for the decade preceding the event proves the inconsistency of the assumed pre-earthquake aseismic slip. A careful interpretation of crustal earthquake distribution in the Strait does not support the presence of the low-angle discontinuity. The modelled horizontal coseismic pattern reveals a scenario that is not supported by any other independent geological and geophysical observation. We conclude that the source model proposed by Barreca et al. for the 1908 Messina Straits earthquake can not be considered as a viable hypothesis for the causative fault.

The article published by Obu et al. (2019) estimating the occurrence of permafrost over a Northern Hemisphere. The results published differ from those presented in previous works. This comment highlights the errors introduced in that study, and in a positive note, its cause and proposed solution. The problem remains beyond capabilities of computed models or empirical research. Its solution lies in using the correct categories and land classifications, and clearly defining the medium subjected to freezing. In particular, the correct classification of ice plays a decisive role here. To provide a full picture of the occurrence of permafrost on the Earth surface, three different media must be considered: 1) exposed land, traditionally understood as “dry land”, 2) glaciers and ice sheets together with its bed and 3) the sea floor (continental shelves). The biggest weakness of the published study is not including glaciated areas in their estimations. The authors do not take either a clear position in this crucial matter, despite a radical divergence of opinions has emerged in recent years. Whether and in what way Greenland or other glaciated areas are covered by permafrost remains a pressing issue, as the final determination of the range of the permafrost worldwide depends on it. Until then, any criteria or benchmark used will continue to be ambiguous and open to discussion, maintaining the discrepancy at millions of square kilometers.

Gierlowski-Kordesch and Cassle (2015, Earth-Science Reviews 148, 209–227) interpreted microconchids (extinct tentaculitoid encrusters) as strictly marine, rejecting the previous conclusions that these organisms occupied a variety of habitats ranging from marine to non-marine. We argue that due to misunderstanding of previous statements concerning the affinity of microconchids, the authors used an actualistic approach and incorrectly compared microconchids with modern phoronids, which led to oversimplifications and misinterpretations. Also their idea that microconchids, as supposedly strictly marine organisms, were preserved in non-marine settings only because of transport by storm surges and tsunamis is unsupported on paleontological grounds. These errors led to mistaken conclusions about microconchid paleoecology that must be discussed in order to avoid an erroneous interpretation of microconchid paleoenvironments.

Globally, fly ash (FA), generated in huge quantities from coal fired power plants is a problematic solid waste. Utilization of FA as an ameliorant for improving soil quality has received a great deal of attention over the past four decades, and many studies have been carried out worldwide. The silt-sized particles, low bulk density (BD), higher water holding capacity (WHC), favorable pH, and significant presence of plant nutrients in FA, make it a potential amendment for soils. The studies suggest enormous potential for the use of FA to improve cultivable, degraded/waste land, mine soil, landfills, and also to reclaim abandoned ash ponds, for agriculture and forestry. FA application improves the physical, chemical and biological qualities of soils to which it is applied. However, in some cases, depending on the characteristics of FA, the release of trace elements and soluble salts from FA to a soil–plant–human system could be a constraint. The effect is minimal in the case of weathered FA. The findings reflected the heterogeneity of ash characteristics, soil types, and agro-climatic conditions, thus a generalized conclusion on the impact of FA on plant species and soil quality is difficult. It is very important that the application of FA to soil must be very specific depending on the properties of the FA and soil. A considerable amount of research has been carried out to blend FA with varieties of organic and inorganic materials, like lime, gypsum, red mud, animal manure, poultry manure, sewage sludge, composts, press mud, vermicompost, biochar, bioinoculants, etc. Co-application of FA with these materials has much advantage: enhanced nutrient availability, decreased bioavailability of toxic metals, pH buffering, organic matter addition, microbial stimulation, overall improvement in the general health of the soil, etc. The performance of FA blending with organic and inorganic materials is better than FA alone treatments. Farm manure was found to be the most promising amendment used along with FA. While using FA in agriculture as a soil ameliorant, it is better to seek the locally available fitting blend materials for exploiting the benefits from their synergistic interaction. However, continuous research in parallel for long durations to dispel apprehension, if any, is desirable under well defined regulatory measures.