Petrogenesis and Tectonic Implications of the Early Cretaceous Granitic Pluton in the Sulu Orogenic Belt: The Caochang Granitic Pluton as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study presented detailed petrological characteristics and high-quality geochronological and geochemical data of a new granitic intrusion. This is important for understanding the petrogenesis of the Cretaceous granitic intursions in the Sulu belt. I recommend this article to be published in this journal after minor modification. I think there are some defects in the article as follows.

Main comments:

1, I suggest reorganizing the logic of the introduction section. For example, line 63, the expression that “the magma source of the granites from the Sulu belt is well-recognized” is in contradiction with the description of line 57-58. Or, I misunderstood?

2, In the discussion 5.2 part, I don’t think there is any Hf-O decoupling, because O is a stable isotope and Hf is a radioactive isotope. I think the description should be revised.

3, Line 428-434, the logical relationship between this paragraph and the above paragraph is unclear. Please reorganize the language.

4, The presentation of the article is a bit wordy and should be simplified.

Minor comments:

Line28-30, delete “In contrast, if the supra-crustal materials were added, the zircons collected from the studied granite will show high δ¹⁸O values that are inconsistent with mantle-like δ¹⁸O values (5.3±0.6‰, 2σ).”

Line47-51, Niu et al. (2015) proposed that the thinning of subcontinental lithosphere was due to water rather than heat.

Line 140, “3.1 Zircon U-Pb geochronology” should be changed to “Zircon U-Pb geochronology and oxygen isotope analyses”

Line 193-194, “a and b for LA-ICP-MS technique, c for SHRIMP II technique” is a wrong description in the figure caption.

Line 202, “locate between 0.000621 and 0.00314” change to “range from 0.000621 to 0.00314”

Line 218, which sample analyzed oxygen isotopes? MY121 (Table 3) or MY1211 (Figure 3)?

Line 236-238, there is repetition with the above sentence and it should be simplified.

Line 268-270, references for calculating magma temperature need to be listed.

Line 275-276, this sentence is inappropriate here, and such a conclusion cannot be reached here yet.

Line 375, what does the “biotite is usually considered as volatiles” mean?

Author Response

Reviewer one:

(1) I suggest reorganizing the logic of the introduction section. For example, line 63, the expression that “the magma source of the granites from the Sulu belt is well-recognized” is in contradiction with the description of line 57-58. Or, I misunderstood?

Response: Thanks. Inappropriate sentences were removed, and we revised the introduction again aimed to meet standards of publication.

(2) In the discussion 5.2 part, I don’t think there is any Hf-O decoupling, because O is a stable isotope and Hf is a radioactive isotope. I think the description should be revised.

Response: Thanks for your good ideas. Ok, inappropriate descriptions were removed and revised. Please see revised red tracks.

(3) Line 428-434, the logical relationship between this paragraph and the above paragraph is unclear. Please reorganize the language.

 Response: Thanks very much. We have revised inappropriate descriptions. Please see red tracks in the marked manuscript.

(4) The presentation of the article is a bit wordy and should be simplified.

 Response: According to the reviewer 1’s comments, we reduced wordy sentences.

(5) Line28-30, delete “In contrast, if the supra-crustal materials were added, the zircons collected from the studied granite will show high δ¹⁸O values that are inconsistent with mantle-like δ¹⁸O values (5.3±0.6‰, 2σ).”

Response: Thanks very much. We have removed this wordy sentence according to the reviewer’s comments.

(6) Line47-51, Niu et al. (2015) proposed that the thinning of subcontinental lithosphere was due to water rather than heat.

 Response: Thanks. Water plays a key role. We removed the inappropriate descriptions (rising heat flux).

(7) Line 140, “3.1 Zircon U-Pb geochronology” should be changed to “Zircon U-Pb geochronology and oxygen isotope analyses”

Response: Thanks very much. The subtitle has been changed to ''Zircon U-Pb geochronology and oxygen isotope analyses''.

(8) Line 193-194, “a and b for LA-ICP-MS technique, c for SHRIMP II technique” is a wrong description in the figure caption.

Response: Thanks very much. Wrong descriptions have been changed.

(9) Line 202, “locate between 0.000621 and 0.00314” change to “range from 0.000621 to 0.00314”

Response: Thanks very much. We have revised inappropriate descriptions.

(10) Line 218, which sample analyzed oxygen isotopes? MY121 (Table 3) or MY1211 (Figure 3)?

Response: It is sample MY1211. MY121 has been changed to MY1211.

(11) Line 236-238, there is repetition with the above sentence and it should be simplified.

Response: The repetition was removed.

(12) Line 268-270, references for calculating magma temperature need to be listed.

Response: Thanks very much. We have supplemented references. In this reference, detailed calculated processes are listed. This reference is listed number 100, please see text.

(13) Line 275-276, this sentence is inappropriate here, and such a conclusion cannot be reached here yet.

Response: Thanks very much. This sentence is removed.

(14) Line 375, what does the “biotite is usually considered as volatiles” mean?

Response: Biotite is water-rich mineral that contains ''(OH)₂'', corresponding to volatiles. Generally, mica groups are remnants of later-evolution of magmas.    

Reviewer 2 Report

Meng et al. present zircon U-Pb dates, Hf and O isotopic measurements, and whole rock geochemistry for a newly discovered granitic pluton from the Sulu orogenic belt. From these data they interpret that the pluton is of I-type affinity and was derived from the re-melting of mafic lower crust during the early Cretaceous. They go on to place the pluton within the context of the known tectonic evolution of the Sulu orogen. The data are of good quality and the interpretations are overall sound.  The geochemical data need clearer presentation in places and the arguments in the text need clarification in places (see comments below).

Major comments:

Origins of adakite-like features:

The discussion of the ambiguities in the origins of geochemical signals like high Sr/Y and La/Yb is valuable.  These signals are often broadly interpreted in terms of depth of melting or adakite-like origins, but the authors clearly discuss the multiple possible origins for such features and the importance of looking at many aspects of magma chemistry.

However, the authors identify magma mixing as the most likely source of these engimatic ratios, but it is not clear how the figures they point to (fig. 10 g-h) illustrates this. More discussion of this point, what magmas are envisioned as mixing to form these chemistries, and the reasons for rejecting the other proposed reasons such as high-Sr/Y source materials are needed to make the discussion more complete.

Hf model ages:

The very negative epsilon Hf values point clearly to the involvement of ancient crust, but the authors present calculated 2-stage model ages and I am unable to find a clarification of either the parameters used in calculating the model ages or the significance of these specific model ages for the discussion. Do the model ages help to distinguish the source of the crust? To what extent would the interpretations be affected if different parameters were assumed for, for example, the proposed ancient reservoir’s Lu/Hf ratio? If the authors need to use these calculated model ages to distinguish the source of the magma, these parts of the model need to be clarified so that the reader can better evaluate the model and uncertainties.

Line-by-line comments:

Introduction:

Line 55: “magmatic magmatism” the redundancy can be edited here

Lines 63-70: can you briefly outline how the distinction of Yangtze vs NCC crust would be made? There is more detailed discussion of this in section 5.2, but a brief outline here would be helpful to the reader.

Lines 68-70: this sentence is confusingly worded and the meaning is difficult to parse.

Lines 71-72: Could you be more specific about the nature of the artificial exposure? Is it a quarry, construction pit, etc.?

Geologic Setting:

Lines 97-98: can you clarify whether “sharp” means the flare-up occurred within a restricted time window? (if I understand correctly.)

Line 121: do you mean “plagioclase and K-feldspar”?

Materials and methods:

Can you add a bit more information about common Pb corrections for the LA-ICPMS results?

Results:

Line 177: This is more of an aside note, but the authors make note of the relatively high Th/U ratios indicating magmatic rather than metamorphic origins. Beyond this, most of the zircons have elevated Th/U (>1) compared even to many magmatic zircons. If the authors want to pursue it, these may potentially provide an additional clue to tectonic setting, e.g. McKay et al. (2018) showed that tectonic strain and magmatic zircon Th/U are correlated in North America at least, with very high Th/U often correlated with extension.

Line 201: why was this spot excluded?

Table 1/Supplemental Table 1: Please add information on the common Pb corrections.

Discussion:

Lines 268-270/Figure 8: where are the Ti-in-zircon data? I cannot find them in the tables or supplement.

Zircon temperature is variable enough to be uncertain as a discriminant for A-type vs orogenic granites, especially A-type granites that differ from the stereotypically high-temperature, anhydrous type cases. For example, many A-type continental rift-related granites and lavas of the Colorado River Extensional Corridor (Basin and Range province, USA) crystallized zircon at temperatures lower than the A-type fields shown here (e.g., Claiborne et al., 2010; Colombini et al., 2011).

Lines 281-284/Figure 8: my understanding is that the P vs Si trend mainly points to apatite fractionation, which suggests formation in magmas that are not S-type/peraluminous (due to the suppression of apatite saturation in peraluminous magmas) rather than pointing to specifically I-type origins.

Lines 293-295: This is a confusing statement in context – do the authors mean to say that other granitoids in the Sulu belt have been interpreted as being sourced from Yangtze rather than NCC crust?

Lines 295-296: it seems like this signature of high d18O zircons and abundant inherited Archean zircons would be highly dependent on the local character of the NCC lower crust.  Can you comment on how universal/secure this correlation in d18O/inherited Archean zircon and NCC origins is?

Lines 311-313: “well-established” would make more sense here than “well-constructed.”

Lines 316-317: can you write some more text describing the two-stage model age calculation in more detail? That isn’t explained either in the text or in the supplemental Lu-Hf data table. For instance what reservoir Lu/Hf ratio you assume, and the effects of uncertainties in this ratio on inferred timing (e.g. a long-lived mafic vs low-Lu/Hf reservoir will lead to very different model ages for instance). How important is the specific model age for the interpretations?

Lines 322-323: a more mafic lower crustal composition is a common inference, but it does not seem to be a necessary component of the argument here or necessary to justify a model having a mafic region in the lower crust. There are almost certainly mafic and felsic regions within the lower crust, as in the upper crust.

Lines 354-355: this is confusingly worded – do you mean to say that: a sufficiently ancient mafic reservoir will evolve to show enriched Hf isotopic compositions over time, despite deriving ultimately from the depleted mantle?

Lines 352-361: it seems more that the Hf and O isotopes point to the re-melting of ancient unweathered crustal material, whether it be mafic or more felsic. The positive evidence for mafic derivation comes more from the whole rock geochemistry results in Figure 9.

Lines 362-364: to what degree does the mixing in of mantle-derived magmas affect the interpretation of the Hf model ages?

Line 368: “display” would make more sense instead of “deserve.”

Line 383: why not allanite instead or in addition to monazite as also shown on the figure? Is this an important component of the model?

Lines 413-414: this point is obscure. Can you clarify how the major element relationships shown in Fig. 10 g-h relate to magma mixing? How do you relate this to the high La/Yb and Sr/Y? Are there supposed to be theoretical magma mixing lines on the diagram that are missing?

Concluding remarks:

#2: the interpretation of the mafic lower crust in specific seems to come rather from the whole rock geochemistry.

Figures:

Figure 8: More notes about figure 8 in the discussion section.

Figure 9 caption: Please clarify that these fields are for prospective source materials of the magmas (although that is easy to infer from the text).

Figure 10 caption: there is scattered reference to the significance of the different panels in the text, but it would be helpful to have the significance spelled out in the captions especially since the last two panels are being used to support the magma mixing scenario whereas the first four panels are being used mainly to discuss mineral fractionation.

Author Response

Major comments:

(1) Origins of adakite-like features: The discussion of the ambiguities in the origins of geochemical signals like high Sr/Y and La/Yb is valuable.  These signals are often broadly interpreted in terms of depth of melting or adakite-like origins, but the authors clearly discuss the multiple possible origins for such features and the importance of looking at many aspects of magma chemistry. However, the authors identify magma mixing as the most likely source of these enigmatic ratios, but it is not clear how the figures they point to (fig. 10 g-h) illustrates this. More discussion of this point, what magmas are envisioned as mixing to form these chemistries, and the reasons for rejecting the other proposed reasons such as high-Sr/Y source materials are needed to make the discussion more complete.

Response: Thanks. Traditional ideas suggest that high Sr/Y and (La/Yb)N correspond to adakite features. However, we found that many reasons can lead to ambiguous explanations for high Sr/Y adakitic rocks. Based on previous notions, we propose a new model to explain. Thanks for the reviewer’s encouragements and comments, we have revised some descriptions.

(2) Hf model ages:The very negative epsilon Hf values point clearly to the involvement of ancient crust, but the authors present calculated 2-stage model ages and I am unable to find a clarification of either the parameters used in calculating the model ages or the significance of these specific model ages for the discussion. Do the model ages help to distinguish the source of the crust? To what extent would the interpretations be affected if different parameters were assumed for, for example, the proposed ancient reservoir’s Lu/Hf ratio? If the authors need to use these calculated model ages to distinguish the source of the magma, these parts of the model need to be clarified so that the reader can better evaluate the model and uncertainties.

Response: Thanks very much. Zircon Lu-Hf is a very mature method in tracing magma sources and magma petrogenesis. Therefore, wordy sentences are not described in the whole text. Multiple studies have proved that second model ages can represent source aging of granitic magmas. Detailed descriptions can be shown in Wu et al. (2007). Please see: Wu, F.Y., Li, X.H., Zheng, Y.F., and Gao, S., 2007. Lu-Hf isotopic systematics and their applications in petrology. Acta Petrologica Sinica 23(2), 185-220

(3) Line 55: “magmatic magmatism” the redundancy can be edited here

Response: Thanks. ''magmatic'' is removed.

(4) Lines 63-70: can you briefly outline how the distinction of Yangtze vs NCC crust would be made? There is more detailed discussion of this in section 5.2, but a brief outline here would be helpful to the reader.

Response: Thanks. These sentences, we want to tell readers that the fault mélange zones are not the absolute boundary for the Yangtze and NCC. Some granitic plutons, with the Yangtze genetic affinities, can be found in the regions adjacent to the NCC through thrusts and fault zones. Therefore, it is necessary to address affinities of granites, especially the granites being distributed in the fault zones or mélanges zones. According to oxygen isotopes, we propose that the granitic pluton with MMEs belong to the products of the Yangtze block.

(5) Lines 68-70: this sentence is confusingly worded and the meaning is difficult to parse.

Response: Thanks. This sentence was removed.

(6) Lines 71-72: Could you be more specific about the nature of the artificial exposure? Is it a quarry, construction pit, etc.?

Response: Yes, it is a quarry. We have supplemented information in the text.

(7) Lines 97-98: can you clarify whether “sharp” means the flare-up occurred within a restricted time window? (if I understand correctly.)

Response: Yes, magmatic flare-up represents sharp magmatism.

(8) Line 121: do you mean “plagioclase and K-feldspar”?

Response: Yes, thanks. We have changed ''K-Plagioclase to K-feldspar''.

(9) Can you add a bit more information about common Pb corrections for the LA-ICPMS results?

Response: No problem. Common Pb corrections were added in the text.

(10) Line 177: This is more of an aside note, but the authors make note of the relatively high Th/U ratios indicating magmatic rather than metamorphic origins. Beyond this, most of the zircons have elevated Th/U (>1) compared even to many magmatic zircons. If the authors want to pursue it, these may potentially provide an additional clue to tectonic setting, e.g. McKay et al. (2018) showed that tectonic strain and magmatic zircon Th/U are correlated in North America at least, with very high Th/U often correlated with extension.

Response: Thanks for good tips. These zircons have high Th/U ratios indicating igneous origins. It is well-know that Early Cretaceous belongs to extensional setting in the Sulu belt, corresponding to metamorphic core complexes. In this study, this hypothesis is not described here. Because high zircon Th/U ratios are tenable. Although some zircons characterized by high Th/U ratios were produced in an extensional setting, petrogenetic processes are more important than backgrounds.

(11) Line 201: why was this spot excluded?

Response: This one was precluded due to low-quality of data.

(12) Table 1/Supplemental Table 1: Please add information on the common Pb corrections.

Response: Thanks. Detailed supplementary notes are described below the Table 1.

(13) Lines 268-270/Figure 8: where are the Ti-in-zircon data? I cannot find them in the tables or supplement.

Response: Thanks. We have supplemented Ti contents. Detailed calculated formula is after Watson and Wark (2006). Watson, E.B., Wark, D.A., and Thomas, J.B., 2006. Crystallization thermometers for zircon and rutile. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 151, 413-433.

(14) Zircon temperature is variable enough to be uncertain as a discriminant for A-type vs orogenic granites, especially A-type granites that differ from the stereotypically high-temperature, anhydrous type cases. For example, many A-type continental rift-related granites and lavas of the Colorado River Extensional Corridor (Basin and Range province, USA) crystallized zircon at temperatures lower than the A-type fields shown here (e.g., Claiborne et al., 2010; Colombini et al., 2011).

Response: Thanks. We agree with the reviewer’s comments. A-type granites are characterized by high-temperature and anhydrous. These features are not only diagnostic features. Combined with tectonic setting and regional geology as well as geochemistry, A-granites can be discriminated well.

(15) Lines 281-284/Figure 8: my understanding is that the P vs Si trend mainly points to apatite fractionation, which suggests formation in magmas that are not S-type/peraluminous (due to the suppression of apatite saturation in peraluminous magmas) rather than pointing to specifically I-type origins.

Response: SiO₂ versus P₂O₅ relation suggests apatite fractionation, and this relation is closely with I-type granites. Chappell (1999) proposed that P₂O₅ decreasing with SiO₂ increasing is indicative of I-type granites. This is because that apatite has very low solubility in the weak peraluminous I-type granites. Therefore, apatite will crystallize in the melts preferentially, leading to low contents of P₂O₅ in the remnant melts. However, apatite has high solubility in strong peraluminous S-type granites, so they will an upward trend with increasing of SiO₂. References: Chappell, B.W., 1999. Aluminium saturation in I- and S-type granites and the characterization of fractionated haplogranites. Lithos 46, 535-551.

(16) Lines 293-295: This is a confusing statement in context – do the authors mean to say that other granitoids in the Sulu belt have been interpreted as being sourced from Yangtze rather than NCC crust?

Response: Yes. Granites, distributed in the Sulu belt, are sourced from the Yangtze rather than the NCC. Multiple studies have been proved.

(17) Lines 295-296: it seems like this signature of high d18O zircons and abundant inherited Archean zircons would be highly dependent on the local character of the NCC lower crust.  Can you comment on how universal/secure this correlation in d18O/inherited Archean zircon and NCC origins is?

Response: Yes, we agree with the reviewer’s comments. Compared to the NCC, the Yangtze block is characterized by low δ18O values and Neoproterozoic inherited zircons lacking Neo-Archean magmatism.

(18) Lines 311-313: “well-established” would make more sense here than “well-constructed.”

Response: ''well-established'' was adopted in this study. Thanks for good tips.

(19) Lines 316-317: can you write some more text describing the two-stage model age calculation in more detail? That isn’t explained either in the text or in the supplemental Lu-Hf data table. For instance what reservoir Lu/Hf ratio you assume, and the effects of uncertainties in this ratio on inferred timing (e.g. a long-lived mafic vs low-Lu/Hf reservoir will lead to very different model ages for instance). How important is the specific model age for the interpretations?

Response: Thanks for good suggestions. Model ages represent primary aging of magmas. Detailed information was described in Wu et al. (2007). In this study, we cannot write more details about model ages because this is not our key points. In addition, zircon Lu-Hf isotopes and model ages are mature, so repeated words and sentences are not necessary.

(20) Lines 322-323: a more mafic lower crustal composition is a common inference, but it does not seem to be a necessary component of the argument here or necessary to justify a model having a mafic region in the lower crust. There are almost certainly mafic and felsic regions within the lower crust, as in the upper crust.

Response: Thanks very much for good tips. We agree with the reviewer’s comments. In this study, according Mg# values, geochemistry discrimination diagrams and isotopes, we propose that mafic lower crustal is the best alternative. If the felsic materials or supra-crustal materials participated in the granitic magmas, the granite will have high δ18O values. Therefore, we consider that the partial melting of mafic lower crust is the best candidate in the study area.

(21) Lines 354-355: this is confusingly worded – do you mean to say that: a sufficiently ancient mafic reservoir will evolve to show enriched Hf isotopic compositions over time, despite deriving ultimately from the depleted mantle?

Response: Thanks. We have removed inappropriate word. Now, it is clear for readers.

(22) Lines 352-361: it seems more that the Hf and O isotopes point to the re-melting of ancient unweathered crustal material, whether it be mafic or more felsic. The positive evidence for mafic derivation comes more from the whole rock geochemistry results in Figure 9.

Response: According to Figure 9, we argue that mafic lower crust is the best alternative in this study. In addition, this hypothesis is in agreement with Hf-O isotopes.

(23) Lines 362-364: to what degree does the mixing in of mantle-derived magmas affect the interpretation of the Hf model ages?

Response: Quantitative calculations are not calculated in this study. We also give a qualitative calculation. Based on previous studies, we argue that over 10% injection of mantle-derived magmas will affect the Hf model ages. In addition, for the whole granitic pluton, the Hf isotopes are homogenous. Thus, this question is not the main issue.

(24) Line 368: “display” would make more sense instead of “deserve.”

Response: ''display'' was adopted.

(25) Line 383: why not allanite instead or in addition to monazite as also shown on the figure? Is this an important component of the model?

Response: Thanks. This is not an important component of the model. Mineral crystallization is only a component for petrogenesis rather than the main text in this study. Minerals evolution lines are after partition coefficient.

(26) Lines 413-414: this point is obscure. Can you clarify how the major element relationships shown in Fig. 10 g-h relate to magma mixing? How do you relate this to the high La/Yb and Sr/Y? Are there supposed to be theoretical magma mixing lines on the diagram that are missing?

Response: This magma mixing curves are based on elemental evolution relations. Detailed descriptions and models can be shown in Langmuir, C.H., Vocke, R.D., Hanson, G.N., Hart, S.R., 1978. A general mixing equation with applications to Icelandic basalts. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 37, 380-392. In addition, this is not related to Sr/Y and La/Yb.

(27) the interpretation of the mafic lower crust in specific seems to come rather from the whole rock geochemistry.

Response: Thanks for good tips. Mafic lower crust is based on Hf-O isotopes and whole-rock geochemistry as well as field and micro-structural observations. Therefore, multiple evidences are tenable to support this model in this study.

(28) Figure 8: More notes about figure 8 in the discussion section.

Response: Thanks. Detailed descriptions are show in discussion section. Figure 8 is clear for readers, so more sentences or wordy descriptions are not very encouraging.

(29) Figure 9 caption: Please clarify that these fields are for prospective source materials of the magmas (although that is easy to infer from the text).

Response: Thanks, we have checked. All is Ok.

(30) Figure 10 caption: there is scattered reference to the significance of the different panels in the text, but it would be helpful to have the significance spelled out in the captions especially since the last two panels are being used to support the magma mixing scenario whereas the first four panels are being used mainly to discuss mineral fractionation.

Response: Thanks very much. We supplemented related reference information.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of the article manuscript entitled “Petrogenesis and tectonic implications of the Early Cretaceous granitic pluton in the Sulu orogenic belt: the Caochang granitic pluton as an example” by Yuanku Meng, Zhongbo Wang, Baoping Gan and Jinqing Liu for journal Minerals (MDPI) - minerals-796639

This is a well-documented case study where authors investigated for the first time identifications of an Early Cretaceous monzonitic granite pluton by means of petrological data, geochemical data and zircon U-Pb-Hf-O isotopic data obtained on samples from the artificial exposure. As a non-local geologist (not from Asia), I have found it hard to follow details of probably well-known regional situation. However, according to authors, manuscript documents completely different type of granite for that area. Therefore, the findings have potential to shed a new light on the petrogenesis and tectonics of the Sulu orogenic belt.

The authors fluently present new data combined with an evaluation of so far known literature data. Interpretation of the collected data together with the discussion has potential to add on the knowledge and represent a contribution that deserves to be published. On overall, I have an opinion that authors have successfully managed in fulfilling their aims and finally produced a correct paper. However, some small(er) corrections or additional comments in the text, as well as minor reorganization of the text itself (especially Table with a whole-rock geochemical data) is recommended to apply before publishing.

I have no serious objections to the isotopic part neither, but please be aware that I am not an isotopic geologist (although in collaborations I do frequently use such data) and opinion from a reviewer specialist for that area is welcome.

Furthermore, I have some small suggestions that may be of some help for authors:

Please, avoid interpretation in the abstract. For example “discussion” in l. 28-32 is not necessary at all for the abstract purposes. Abstract should be shorter and concise.

1. line 55 magmatic magmatism ?
2. line 75 Chapter 2 should be divided into two separate chapters, the later already (from l.115) belongs to the some subchapter in Results
3. line 108 a town named … village :-) use settlement or something else, this is understandable but unusual
4. line 119 these are vol. %
5. line 123 envelope ?
6. line 135 Figure captions – abbreviations are from? Reference is missing.
7. line 171 Please, check if rock powder mass is in milligrams, not micrograms.

Note: Generally, it would be better for a reader if the paper is organized in a way which follows geochemical results (whole-rock analyses) first, and then data on isotopes and ages (zircon).

1. line 223 Table 4 should be organized in the usual way for geochemistry:

1) sort macroelements (oxides) by decreasing valency: SiO2, TiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3,…,Na2O, K2O.. than P2O5, LOI;

2) alphabeticaly microelements and

3) REE as a separate block from La-Lu.

Give some basic statistics (min, max, avg…)

Give an explanation and formulas in footer or caption for the calculated parameters (A.R., Mg#, etc…)

CIPW should contain all calculated normative minerals, not only feldspars, and sum should be 100 (wt.% ?). There is no sense of foids (nepheline and leucite) in granite, so results of 0.00 are meaningless to show.

1. line 249 and others → when citing some diagram use not only the first author; for example here is Peccerillo and Taylor, not only Peccerillo, etc. For more than two authors use … et al.
2. line 252 garnet
3. line 435 suffered → passed through

I did not cross-check references.

Author Response

(1) line 223 Table 4 should be organized in the usual way for geochemistry:

1) sort macroelements (oxides) by decreasing valency: SiO2, TiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3,…,Na2O, K2O.. than P2O5, LOI;

Response: Thanks. We have sorted macroelements according the reviewer’s suggestive comments. Please see Table 4.

(2) alphabeticaly microelements and 3) REE as a separate block from La-Lu.

Response: Thanks. REE elements will be regarded as a separate block. See updated Table 4.

(3) Give some basic statistics (min, max, avg…); Give an explanation and formulas in footer or caption for the calculated parameters (A.R., Mg#, etc…); CIPW should contain all calculated normative minerals, not only feldspars, and sum should be 100 (wt.% ?). There is no sense of foids (nepheline and leucite) in granite, so results of 0.00 are meaningless to show.

Response: Thanks. We have revised inappropriate spelling. In addition, nepheline and leucite are removed within the calculated results.

• line 249 and others → when citing some diagram use not only the first author; for example here is Peccerillo and Taylor, not only Peccerillo, etc. For more than two authors use … et al.

Response: Thanks very much. We have completed appropriate references formats based on ''Minerals''.

(5) line 252 garnet

Response: We have changed capital ''G'' to ''g''.

• line 435 suffered → passed through

Response: Thanks for good tips. ''suffered'' has been changed to ''passed through''