Geochronology and Geochemical Characteristics of Granitoids in the Lesser Xing’an–Zhangguangcai Range: Petrogenesis and Implications for the Early Jurassic Tectonic Evolution of the Mudanjiang Ocean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this manuscript are well-organized. My major concerns are the study target in this text. There are several types of rocks in this work, but not all of them are granites, e.g., granodiorite. Hence, I recommend that it will be better to use granotoids in stead. Therefore, the whole text should be revised, refering to this issue.

Another concern is the sequence of the Section 5.3 and 5.4. There is a prerequisite to discuss the evolution of these granotoids: these granotoids share a similar magma source.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally, the English expressions are fine. But some minor mistakes should be revised.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Re: Manuscript ID: Minerals-3144288

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Geochronology and geochemical characteristics of granite in the Lesser Xing’an–Zhangguangcai Range: Petrogenesis and implications for the Early Jurassic tectonic evolution of the Mudanjiang Ocean”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We  have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.

In the following, I will respond to each of the suggestions and questions raised by the reviewers in turn.

We have also re-examined the full text, and where errors were made in the review, we have reworked them accordingly. We are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript and the inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and rewritten by journal-recommended rendering companies. We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript, and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. We also hope that the revised article will meet your expectations.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely.

Jingui Kong

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper deals with U-Pb geochronology and geochemistry of early Jurassic granitic rocks in China. The dating results seem OK and treatments of geochemical data seem tolerable. However, more rigorous checks by the authors seem necessary. I am not so familiar with tectonics in China, so I cannot give any suggestions on tectonics. Sorry.

 

 

・「Zircon U-Pb isotope analysis was conducted based on the standard DZ/T0184.3-1997 [33].」

→Is this OK? What is “DZ/T0184.3-1997”?

・「NIT610」 should be 「SRM610」

・「with Li2B4O7 flux」

→should be 「with ?? g Li2B4O7 flux」

・「are shown in Table 1」　→ I cannot find Table 1 (and the other tables)．

・「with a elongated axis measures 1.5-2.5 μm」 should be 「with an elongated axis of 150-250 μm」

・「The age values for all measurement points of sample LT16 are located on or near the concordia curve (Figure 4c), the weighted average age of 22 zircon grains is 177.8±1.6 Ma (MSWD=0.9), representing the crystallization age.」

→There are three discordant ages, so I think "The age values for all measurement points of sample LT16 are located on or near the concordia curve (Figure 4c)" is not correct.

・「Additionally, three zircon grains have ages of 111.20±3.73 Ma, 151.63±2.47 Ma, 157.29±3.70 Ma, which are the later magmatic hydrothermal event modification ages.」

→Are these the three discordant plots in the Figure 4c? Do you have any supporting evidence of later magmatic hydrothermal event?

・「In cathodoluminescence (CL) images」

→ You should use this phrase only once and then use "In CL images"．

・「LT08 are located on or near the concordia curve (Figure 4d)」 should be 「LT21 are located on or near the concordia curve (Figure 4d)」

・「Figure 3. Zircon cathodoluminescence images of Late Jurassic grainte from the Yangmugang area in Lesser Xing’an-Zhangguangcai Range.」 should be 「Figure 3. Typical zircon cathodoluminescence images of Late Jurassic grainte from the Yangmugang area in Lesser Xing’an-Zhangguangcai Range. White circle denote laser spots.」

・Figure 4: Add explanation on the inset figures.

・Figure 5: Add "(this study)" to discriminate this study from others.

・Figure 6: Add "(this study)" to discriminate this study from others.

・「(Figure 6c), the monzonitic granite」 should be 「(Figure 6c), the granite porphyry」

・Figure 7: It is better to discriminate the result of this study from others by changing color of histogram.

・Figure 8: It is necessary to explain what A, FG, QGT mean in the caption.

・「ID values」：　What is this?

・「(4) In this text, the average zircon saturation temperature (TZr) of the granite samples is 782.63°C, significantly lower than the zircon saturation temperature of A-type granites (800°C)」

→It seems strange to use "In this text" here. "782.63°C" is too precise. Use "783°C". "significantly lower" should be changed to "a bit lower" or something because zircon saturation temperature should have some uncertainty and so you cannot say it is "significant".

・「indicating the increasing differentiation of plagioclase or potassium feldspar during the magma evolution process (Figure 10a-b) [16-17]」

→Is Figure 10a-b OK? If so, more explanation is needed what these figures mean.

・Figure 10: (c) is missing in the caption.

・"The Early Jurassic granite samples in the study area have Nb/Ta values are 8.20-17.24" should be "The Early Jurassic granite samples in the study area have Nb/Ta values of 8.20-17.24"

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I added some suggestions in the comments.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Re: Manuscript ID: Minerals-3144288

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Geochronology and geochemical characteristics of granite in the Lesser Xing’an–Zhangguangcai Range: Petrogenesis and implications for the Early Jurassic tectonic evolution of the Mudanjiang Ocean”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.

In the following, I will respond to each of the suggestions and questions raised by the reviewers in turn.

We have also re-examined the full text, and where errors were made in the review, we have reworked them accordingly. We are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript and the inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and rewritten by journal-recommended rendering companies. We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript, and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. We also hope that the revised article will meet your expectations.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely.

Jingui Kong

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

all my comments and suggestion are included in the annotated pdf. the comments regarding to the petrological characteristics section should be reorganized.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the English language is rather good and could be improved

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Re: Manuscript ID: Minerals-3144288

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Geochronology and geochemical characteristics of granite in the Lesser Xing’an–Zhangguangcai Range: Petrogenesis and implications for the Early Jurassic tectonic evolution of the Mudanjiang Ocean”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.

In the following, I will respond to each of the suggestions and questions raised by the reviewers in turn.

We have also re-examined the full text, and where errors were made in the review, we have reworked them accordingly. We are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript and the inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and rewritten by journal-recommended rendering companies. We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript, and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. We also hope that the revised article will meet your expectations.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely.

Jingui Kong

Author Response File: Author Response.docx