Geochemical Characteristics and Zircon U-Pb Geochronology of Diabase in the Jinchanghe Mining Area, Western Yunnan, SW China: Implications for Tectonic and Magmatic Evolution of the Baoshan Block

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper is a very interesting to scientific community, so main adea is to devote to complex studying of the  polymetall deposits. Isotope and chemical investigate are including LA- ICP - MS dating zircon of magmatic and hydrothermal zircon with different ages.

The main requests are should do new analyses for Rb-Sr isotope for WR in order to create a model of the EM reservoirs to deposits.

There are too  much abstracts in the references .m

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Paper is a very interesting to scientific community, so main adea（idea） is to devote to complex studying of the  polymetall deposits. Isotope and chemical investigate are including LA- ICP - MS dating zircon of magmatic and hydrothermal zircon with different ages.

The main requests are should do new analyses for Rb-Sr isotope for WR in order to create a model of the EM reservoirs to deposits.

Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1.

First of all, I would like to thank the reviewer for the good suggestions on this article. In this paper, the research work on rock geochemistry and zircon U-Pb dating is mainly carried out on the Jinchanghe diabase, analysis and test of the Lu-Hf isotope of zircon are also carried out. The formation age, material source and characteristics of magma source of the diabase are studied and discussed. Considering that the Lu-Hf isotopic system of zircon has a higher temperature than other isotopically closed systems, it has a higher precision. Therefore, the zircon U-Pb dating and Lu-Hf isotope research work in this paper also have a good constraint on EM reservoirs. However, creating a model of the EM reservoirs to deposits in this area requires extensive research work on isotope tracing in the future.

Point 2: There are too much abstracts in the references .m

Response 2: Please provide your response for Point 2.

In accordance with the opinions of reviewers, the content of the abstract has been simplified in this revision, and the number of words is less than 200 words.

Thanks again to the reviewer for the comments on this paper!

Best wishes.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Journal Minerals (ISSN 2075-163X)

Manuscript ID minerals-1504453

Title reviewed ms:

Geochemical characteristics and Zircon U-Pb geochronology of diabase in the Jinchanghe mining area, Western Yunnan, SW China: Implications for tectonic and magmatic evolution of the Baoshan block

Authors :xue long LIU , Wenchang Li * , yunman Zhou , chedngfeng Zhao , jun Zhu * , fanglan Li , jiyuan Wang , qingrui Li , zhiyi Wei , xue Liu , hai Wang , jun Fu

Dear Authors.

Hereby, you can find both general and detailed comments to your Manuscript (MS).

This paper offers a nice documentation on the magmatic Triassic emplacement of basic magma and shines a light on the hydrothermal Cretaceous event determining a metal-rich body in the Baoshan block in SW China.

As far as I know, the manuscript has not been published previously.

The title is conforming with the contents of the Ms and the approach and results and conclusions intelligible from the abstract alone.

The structure of the paper is quite well-balanced and sharp.

The Introduction needs to be slightly integrated with some hints on the relevance of the new dating and compositional characterization of the examined rocks.

The geological setting needs to be integrated with some geodynamic contextualization; e.g., about the Tethys tectonics.

Section 3 shall be better supported with field pictures, an update of the map (see detail comments). Overall should be clearer if that map is the result of your work or of others. Outcrop and optical characterization shall be reinforced. There or in the Methods and materials section I recommend to do a table that presents all the samples used in this paper (see attached pdf for detail comments).

For the rest, the Results are well presented and distinct from the interpretations.

The discussion also need some adjustments on its initial internal structure, while their third part is well and elegantly presented. Possibly a last geodynamic scheme that shades a light on the two dates phases the Triassic and Early Cretaceous would be much appreciated. There are other minor points of change were modifications on the Triassic interpretation may be demanded.

The conclusions are very nice although the geodynamic interpretation shall be better discussed.

As mentioned above, I have proposed changes in the attached pdf file.

Suggestions for improving technical points have been provided with detailed comments that will help preparing the final version of the manuscript.

After random checks if the literature, I found that the reference list corresponds to the cited papers in the text. No excess of self-citations was found.

Notwithstanding these major corrections, as the manuscript presents an interesting topic, surely will catch the attention of the readers of Minerals.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: This paper offers a nice documentation on the magmatic Triassic emplacement of basic magma and shines a light on the hydrothermal Cretaceous event determining a metal-rich body in the Baoshan block in SW China.

As far as I know, the manuscript has not been published previously.

The title is conforming with the contents of the Ms and the approach and results and conclusions intelligible from the abstract alone.

The structure of the paper is quite well-balanced and sharp.

The Introduction needs to be slightly integrated with some hints on the relevance of the new dating and compositional characterization of the examined rocks.

 Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1.

This revision has added the content of the dating and compositional characterization of Jinchanghe diabase. It is worth mentioning that there are no dating results for diabase in this area. The added content is “Because of the low degree of research in the mining area, so far there is not revealed the mineralization related intermediate-acidic rock mass. The surface of the mining area can be seen diabase island-lenticular distribution. After detailed observation under microscope, the main components of diabase are determined as pyroxene and basic feldspar.”

Point 2: The geological setting needs to be integrated with some geodynamic contextualization; e.g., about.

Response 2: Please provide your response for Point 2.

This revision has added the content of the Tethys tectonics, such as “Under the influence of regional tectonic evolution, this area has mainly experienced two long geological evolution processes: Cambrian to Early Permian proto Proto- and Paleo-Tethys stable platform and platform basin stage, and Late Early Permian to Triassic Paleo-Tethys subduction collision stage[11].”

Point 3:Section 3 shall be better supported with field pictures, an update of the map (see detail comments). Overall should be clearer if that map is the result of your work or of others. Outcrop and optical characterization shall be reinforced. There or in the Methods and materials section I recommend to do a table that presents all the samples used in this paper (see attached pdf for detail comments).

 Response 3: Please provide your response for Point 3.

According to the comments of reviewers, this revision has updated the geological map of the Jinchanghe lead-zinc polymetallic deposit (see Figure 2). Outcrop and optical characterization have been reinforced. At the same time, in the Methods and materials section（4.1 Sampling Collection）, the sample information statistics table has been supplemented(Table1 Sample statistics of diabase in the Jinchanghe Fe-Cu-Pb-Zn deposit).

Point 4:The discussion also need some adjustments on its initial internal structure, while their third part is well and elegantly presented. Possibly a last geodynamic scheme that shades a light on the two dates phases the Triassic and Early Cretaceous would be much appreciated. There are other minor points of change were modifications on the Triassic interpretation may be demanded.

Response 4: Please provide your response for Point 4.

According to comments and suggestions, the discussion section has been significantly adjusted, specially the part of “6.4. Regional tectonic-magma evolution and mineralization”. This revision mainly highlights the magmatic activity and hydrothermal activity of the two dates phases the Late Triassic and Early Cretaceous.

Point 5:The conclusions are very nice although the geodynamic interpretation shall be better discussed.

Response 5: Please provide your response for Point 5.

First of all, I would like to thank the reviewer for the recognition of our research work in this paper. With this revision, the discussion in Section 6.4 has highlighted the two dates phases the Triassic and Early Cretaceous magmatic activity and hydrothermal activity, which makes the Discussion and Conclusion sections well-matched.

It has been revised item by item according to the opinions of the reviewers.

Thanks again to the reviewer for the comments on this paper!

Best wishes.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

*in bold my replays*

Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1.
This revision has added the content of the dating and compositional characterization of Jinchanghe diabase. It is worth mentioning that there are no dating results for diabase in this area. The added content is “Because of the low degree of research in the mining area, so far there is not revealed the mineralization related intermediate-acidic rock mass. The surface of the mining area can be seen diabase island-lenticular distribution. After detailed observation under microscope, the main components of diabase are determined as pyroxene and basic feldspar.”

  * *OK*

Point 2: The geological setting needs to be integrated with some geodynamic contextualization; e.g., about.
Response 2: Please provide your response for Point 2.
This revision has added the content of the Tethys tectonics, such as “Under the influence of regional tectonic evolution, this area has mainly experienced two long geological evolution processes: Cambrian to Early Permian proto Proto- and Paleo-Tethys stable platform and platform basin stage, and Late Early Permian to Triassic Paleo-Tethys subduction collision stage[11].”

  * *Very synthetic and straight to the point... although it could have
    been said more to an international public.*

Point 3:Section 3 shall be better supported with field pictures, an update of the map (see detail comments). Overall should be clearer if that map is the result of your work or of others. Outcrop and optical characterization shall be reinforced. There or in the Methods and materials section I recommend to do a table that presents all the samples used in this paper (see attached pdf for detail comments).

Response 3: Please provide your response for Point 3.

According to the comments of reviewers, this revision has updated the geological map of the Jinchanghe lead-zinc polymetallic deposit (see Figure 2). Outcrop and optical characterization have been reinforced. At the same time, in the Methods and materials section（4.1 Sampling Collection）, the sample information statistics table has been supplemented(Table1 Sample statistics of diabase in the Jinchanghe Fe-Cu-Pb-Zn deposit).

  * *The map had some semplifications but I am afraid that it did not
    solve the questions that it arose. Please have a look at the
    previous PDF file with my comments on the map. I did not see field
    or thin section pictures reinforcing this part. However, I
    appreciate that there is a table with the samples but as coordinates
    are missing and lithology is exactly the same for the all of them, I
    think that the changes performed should be a little more reworked to
    be satisfying. Wasn't a sample JCH7-07 a quartz monzonite in the
    first submitted version? Replaying to this questions, would also
    help finally treating the data in figures 6 and 7 in more detail,
    thus distinguishing samples within different clusters.*

Point 4:The discussion also need some adjustments on its initial internal structure, while their third part is well and elegantly presented. Possibly a last geodynamic scheme that shades a light on the two dates phases the Triassic and Early Cretaceous would be much appreciated. There are other minor points of change were modifications on the Triassic interpretation may be demanded.

Response 4: Please provide your response for Point 4.
According to comments and suggestions, the discussion section has been significantly adjusted, specially the part of “6.4. Regional tectonic-magma evolution and mineralization”. This revision mainly highlights the magmatic activity and hydrothermal activity of the two dates phases the Late Triassic and Early Cretaceous.

  * *ok*

*From my point of view, after a minor revision required on Point 3, the paper should be suitable for publication.*

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you for your comments on this article. Hereby, I need to explain a situation to you. In the last modification comments, you mentioned that your detailed comments were provided in the attached PDF file, but we failed to find it in the manuscript system. Although we also sent an email to the editorial department for inquiry (Alexandru ciuclea Alexandru ciuclea@mdpi.com, 2022.1.5), no results have been obtained. Therefore, we couldn’t answer all your questions in the modification and we couldn’t modify the manuscript well following your provided suggestions.

In addition, field or thin section pictures have already been shown in Figure 3. The detailed content is “Figure 3. Filed photographs and photomicrographs of diabase in the Jinchanghe Fe-Cu-Pb-Zn deposit. (a) Lens of diabase intrusion in the 1660 m level, (b) The diabase exposed in the drill hole of ZK4k-13x, (c) The zoisitization of plagioclase and the amphibolization of pyroxene in diabase, (d) The diabasic structure formed by subhedral pyroxene crystals filled in a triangular hole composed of platy plagioclase crystals and the albitization of plagioclase.”

According to the last modification opinions, we supplemented the information table of all samples in this paper (Table 1). The samples collected in our research work are diabase from Jinchanghe mining area. In the first submission, the lithology of JCH7-07 sample was quartz monzonite, which was our clerical error. In Table 1, we give the specific location of each sample ( mainly drilling and depth ), but because the specific drilling information involves the problem of commercial secrets, we cannot mark it in Figure 2 without permission. Herein, we sincerely hope that you can understand it. But with this modification, we add the longitude and latitude coordinates of the mining area.

Thank you again for your comments on this article!

Best wishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf