Discussion Reply to the comment by J. Charreau et al. on “Magnetostratigraphic study of the Kuche Depression, Tarim Basin, and Cenozoic uplift of the Tian Shan Range, Western China” [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2008, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.01.025] Baochun Huang a, ⁎, John D.A. Piper b , Rixiang Zhu a a State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China b Geomagnetism Laboratory, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, UK article info Article history: Accepted 29 June 2008 Available online 23 September 2008 Editor: P. DeMenocal Firstly the comments of Charreau et al. (2008) should be placed in context. Our study (Huang et al., 2006) was based on investigation of 1006 horizons (2 or more cores from each horizon, with data from 969 horizons accepted) in a foreland basin succession ranging from ~31 to 5.5 Ma in age. Their 2006 study (Charreau et al., 2006) of the Yaha section was based on investigation of ~500 horizons (two cores from each horizon, with data from ~410 horizons accepted) in a succession ~10 km along strike dated ~13 to 5.2 Ma. Thus our study was interpreting a dataset twice as large and covering a time period three times longer than Charreau et al. (2006) and our major conclusion, namely that sedimentation rates averaged ~7 cm/kyr during the earlier history of the orogen and increased dramatically to ~13 cm/kyr at ~16 Ma, is explicit and unaffected. Since previous magnetostrati- graphic studies in the Tian Shan region (Chen et al., 2002; Sun et al., 2004; Charreau et al., 2005) have been confined to Miocene and younger successions, our primary aim was to resolve the longer history of Cenozoic uplift and denudation. Although it formed part of our Discussion, we would not further question the interpretation of Charreau et al. (2006) of their Yaha study and accept evidence they provide for the age of their section. The point at issue is how results from the Yaha section are to be correlated with our study and the disagreement concerns interpreta- tion of sedimentation rate between ~16 and 5.5 Ma: Charreau et al. (2006) argue for an increase in rate at ~11–10 Ma whereas we argue for an increase in rate at ~7 Ma. The case for revising our estimate of the sedimentation rate after ~7 Ma can readily be dismissed. Examination of our Fig. 7 (Huang et al., 2006) shows tight linear fit to the stratigraphic height versus assigned age graph with an estimated sedimentation rate of ~23 cm/ kyr from ~7–5.7 Ma. Their revised plot of stratigraphic thickness versus magnetostratigraphic age of data from our section A (Fig. 1 in their comment) inhibits a change in sedimentation rate at ~7 Ma by using a compressed time axis. This uppermost part of our section is dated from a number of lines of evidence. Magnetostratigraphic age estimates of the Xiyu Forma- tion range from 1.8 to 3.5 Ma (Zheng et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2002; Sun et al., 2004) whilst results from the Atushi and Kuche formations (the latter comprising the youngest part of our succession) are dominated by reversed polarity and considered to correlate with the Gilbert reversed Chron by Zheng et al. (2000) and Teng et al. (1996) and are therefore between ~5.2 and 3.3 Ma in age. There was an influx of thick conglomerates into the succession during Pliocene and Quaternary times (Burchfiel et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2002; Fu et al., 2003, Sun et al., 2004, 2007) and input of coarse clastic deposits is the primary reason why these young sediment thicknesses are high; the average sedimentation rate deduced by us after ~7 Ma is entirely compatible with sedimentation rates in foreland basin environ- ments elsewhere in central Asia (10–40 cm/kyr, Burbank et al., 1992; Harrison et al., 1993). There is no doubt about this increase in sediment accumulation in mid-Miocene to Pliocene times which is well documented elsewhere in central Asia (e.g. Sun et al., 2004, 2005; Charreau et al., 2005; Sun et al., 2007). Because we were dealing with a much longer time period than the one studied by Charreau et al. (2006) the time axis on our stratigraphic height versus magnetostratigraphic age graph (Fig. 7, Huang et al., 2006) was relatively compressed and we sought to fit just three straight line segments embracing time intervals ~31– 16, 16–7 and 7–5.7 Ma. In this we were strongly influenced by the Earth and Planetary Science Letters 275 (2008) 404–406 DOI's of original article: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.09.0208 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.01.025. ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 82998412; fax: +86 10 62010846. E-mail addresses: bchuang@mail.iggcas.ac.cn, bchliv05@yahoo.com (B. Huang). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Earth and Planetary Science Letters journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl 0012-821X/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.06.053