1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0040-1951(98)00209-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Geological causes of recent (∼100 yr) vertical land movement in the Netherlands

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
81
1
2

Year Published

2002
2002
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(88 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
4
81
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This is much more consistent with geological data than previous geodetic estimates, e.g. uplift s 1.6 mm/ yr for the Eifel with respect to reference points in other parts of the uplifting Rhenish shield [1] or 0.8 mm/yr for the Maastricht area, outside the region of main uplift [12,32]. Overestimates of regional relative motion may again have resulted partly from the use of only two or three national height surveys, where adjacent loops have been frequently measured at quite di¡erent times, and thus under highly variable subsoil moisture conditions.…”
Section: Vertical Motions Of Tectonic Origin and Geodetic Motion Ratesupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is much more consistent with geological data than previous geodetic estimates, e.g. uplift s 1.6 mm/ yr for the Eifel with respect to reference points in other parts of the uplifting Rhenish shield [1] or 0.8 mm/yr for the Maastricht area, outside the region of main uplift [12,32]. Overestimates of regional relative motion may again have resulted partly from the use of only two or three national height surveys, where adjacent loops have been frequently measured at quite di¡erent times, and thus under highly variable subsoil moisture conditions.…”
Section: Vertical Motions Of Tectonic Origin and Geodetic Motion Ratesupporting
confidence: 90%
“…This is mainly due to the very low actual rates of crustal motion in these regions, implying that long periods of observation are needed for tectonic displacements to exceed the measurement noise and that many non-tectonic causes of such movements have also to be considered. However, the high geodetic rate estimates have contributed to the assumption that many areas currently experience increased tectonic activity [12,13] or that the contribution of transient seismotectonic processes is recorded at the geodetic timescale [14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model, however, places sea level at −18.5± 6.5 8.9 m. In the absence of the δ 18 O and Red Sea curves, it places sea level at −10.4 ± 4.4 m. In the absence of these curves, the model also identifies as an outlier early Eemian lacustrine sediment in the same core. These results suggest that the North Sea in the region of this boring is subsiding faster than the Kooi et al (1998) estimates.…”
Section: Outlier Analysismentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Finally, our model identifies as an outlier early Weichselian (post-Eemian) lacustrine sediment from a boring in the North Sea (Zagwijn, 1983). The sediment indicates freshwater conditions at a relative sea level of about -40 m, which we adjust to −23 ± 3 m based upon the subsidence estimates of Kooi et al (1998). The model, however, places sea level at −18.5± 6.5 8.9 m. In the absence of the δ 18 O and Red Sea curves, it places sea level at −10.4 ± 4.4 m. In the absence of these curves, the model also identifies as an outlier early Eemian lacustrine sediment in the same core.…”
Section: Outlier Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The net area averaged sediment accumulation rate of 4.2 mm year −1 in the Kleine Noordwaard study area is just enough to compensate the actual rate of sea-level rise and soil subsidence in the Netherlands, which are 2 mm year −1 (Ligvoet et al 2015) and 0.5-2.5 mm year −1 for the Biesbosch (Kooi et al 1998). However, the accumulation can not compensate the high end scenarios for sea-level rise in the Netherlands of 0.4 to 10.5 mm y −1 (Katsman et al 2011), especially since freshly deposited sediment will compact over the years and thus result in a lower net accumulation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%