Reply to the comment on "Geochemistry of buried river sediments from Ghaggar Plains, NW India: Multi-proxy records of variations in provenance, paleoclimate, and paleovegetation patterns in the Late Quaternary" by Singh et al. (2016), Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 449 (2016) 85-100

Abstract

In the comment on our paper (this issue), Clift et al. (2016) compared our recently reported radiogenic Nd-isotopic record in two drill cores (Singh et al., 2016) with those from the Hakra floodplain sediments and Indus Delta sediments. While they agree with the concept of erosion patterns in the western Himalayan sources being climatically modulated, they offer an alternative interpretation for our reported variability in the radiogenic Nd-isotopic values. Here, we show that the Nd-isotopic values for the Holocene succession instead can be explained by the bedrock geology of the source region of these sediments. Moreover, we note that whereas our paper considers a similar to 75 ka fluvial depositional record, their comment is only based on the post-Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) record. When considering the longer record, their arguments do not negate the main conclusions of our original paper. (c) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved