Geochemistry and Petrogenesis of Shoshonitic Dyke Swarm in the Northeast of Meshkinshahr, NW Iran

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 36-40: First and third sentences seems like repetition of each other, please omit them or revise

Line 40: I think rather than quoted as [4] it is better to give the name of the researcher, please check the rules of the Minerals magazine.

Line 41-47: You gave references of very old papers and did not mention any new studies. The common think about shoshonites it is not their silica content, their potassium content is the major discriminator.

Line 51: What I extract from the introduction, you trying to mention shoshonites generated via different processes, but you should mention more recent work: please check works and implent the introduction

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sandro-Conticelli/publication/233925131_Leucite-bearing_kamafugiticleucititic_and_-free_lamproitic_ultrapotassic_rocks_and_associated_shoshonites_from_Italy_Constraints_on_petrogenesis_and_geodynamics/links/00b49522ce93c0a4d3000000/Leucite-bearing-kamafugitic-leucititic-and-free-lamproitic-ultrapotassic-rocks-and-associated-shoshonites-from-Italy-Constraints-on-petrogenesis-and-geodynamics.pdf

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00410-014-0983-9.pdf

Line 54: Please give citation about the Cenozoic magmatism of Iran

Such as: Rabiee, A., Rossetti, F., Asahara, Y., Azizi, H., Lucci, F., Lustrino, M., & Nozaem, R. (2020). Long-lived, Eocene-Miocene stationary magmatism in NW Iran along a transform plate boundary. Gondwana Research, 85, 237-262.

Line 55: Can you give a citation about km scale magmatic regions?

Line 54-57: please check the grammar of the sentence

Line 68: Convergence plate rate(s)?

Line 68: Who are “they” in that sentence? Please clarify

Line 71: Plat ( e )

Line 77-80: In Turkey, Paleocene magmatism is very scarce and mostly attributed to the post-collisional mantle re-organization rather than the subduction itself. You can maybe change it to Paleogene rather than Paleocene because the majority of the magmatic events took place in Ypresian

I revise you to check in terms of Turkey:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1367912019300033

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00410-005-0022-y.pdf

and for Armenia

https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/428/1/73.abstract

 

Line 79: The paper of Dilek et al., 2010 deals with the Miocene magmatism and did not deal with Paleocene or Paleogene, you can omit the reference.

Line 83: I revise to not mention geochemical trends (such as more evolved ones) before mentioning the geochemistry section

Line 90: You mention lots of local names till here which I found a bit confusing then you said you are working on NW of Iran, I suggest mentioning a much larger picture before and revising this part to the specific area you are working on

Line 94-96: Why do you mention you deal with Paleocene, your rocks are mid-Eocene age, I don’t understand your point here.

Line 99: Instead of a given name, you should give [number]

Line 101: Considered?

Line 109: sub-recent times?

Line 110: Most intrusive seems a bit strange maybe you can use majority?

Line 114: What about this massive volcanic area, I assume you mention Miocene to recent magmatic activity? But you don’t have to dive into it, since you are dealing with Eocene issues.

Line 125: I revise to cite articles and studies that can be reached by everyone rather than citing a thesis from the ’70s which can be checked by no one.

Line 126-127: Sorry but according to your scale, the area is not a “large part” and can be ascribed by its exact surface cover as km2.

Line 131: “faulted escarpments, up to some hundred meters high,” are you sure about that?

Line 143-144: I saw some dykes also extended in the quaternary units. How do you explain their existence in the younger units. Are there dykes younger than Eocene?

Line 195: µm not um

Line 196: Ablation depth was 20-40 µm (again not um)?. Is there any possibility that you drill the zircon?

Line  215: “to the extent of alteration.”?

Line 218: What do you mean by “present as”?

Line 222: How do you know your px is diopside and not augite?

Line 227-228: Where are the analcime analysis can be found? I did not locate any of them? Besides, I firmly believe the dark spots are not analcime rather than they are epoxy due to the generation of the thin section. I assume that there is a high possibility that they were leucite and they turn into analcime, but this is not a good representation of that issue.

 Line 242: Again how do you know they are diopside?

Line 262: What is Donna et al., 2010? Which paper in references? I assume it is the paper of Whitney in American mineralogist

Line 266-267: I saw different LOI values in andesite up to 7 % and did not contain analcime, why do you give a specific portion of the LOI, you must correct and discuss these parts properly.

Line 272: P2O5 (0.11-0.65 wt. %) is not low. You can mention as much lower compared to the other ones

Line 274-275: they actually plot in the trachy basalt and basaltic trachy andesite fields. Why you did not mention it.

Line 277: affinity to shoshonitic rocks?

Line 272- 286: You gave lots of information about magma processes in a small section. First of all, you should dissect the table especially normative mineralogy, and discuss a bit more.

The majority of the rocks display nepheline normative character but some are not? Same thing applies for quartz normative issues too, you can extend the information about those issues to the discussion part and it is better not the give the conclusions in that place

The same applies for the fc processes, removal of elements, and so on.

Line 289: Please use the same symbols for all figures, it is a must.  Also the size of the symbols in different figures are very different please re-size them

Line 291: You should mention the abrosikite affinity in the text, not in the figure caption

Line 295-300: Why you did not discuss major elements like the trace elements in terms of Harker variations? s

Line 301-303: It is not a reasonable argument, that volcanic glass also contributes to significant changes in chemistry. Please omit this section.

Line 304-305: What do you mean they did not form phases, very strange grammar?

Line 322-323: REE enrichment can be controlled by many things, melting of garnet and phlogopite is only one aspect of them

Line 325-326 What is interesting in the trace elements is the abundance of Ba-Sr values, you can also compare your values to the high ba-sr magmatic units, this can give you a new insight into your paper

Line 333: It is better to give age determination section before Sr-Nd analysis, and you can explain the initial age data on Sr-Nd calculation

Line 342: Are you really sure that the TDM (Ma) ages are correct? They are quite young? I strongly revise your calculation, they should be wrong.

Line 346: you have to use different colors for the figure symbols, (for each rock group)

Line 355: IT is better to say subhedral based on grain morphology

Page 20:

Line 9: It is better to give review papers rather than minor case studies

Line 12-13: the papers you mentioned in 59-60-61-62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 covers the late Cenozoic magmatic events, but you are dealing with Early Cenozoic units, you should give references on Eocene of turkey if you want to imply that

Topuz, G., Altherr, R., Schwarz, W. H., Siebel, W., Satır, M., & Dokuz, A. (2005). Post-collisional plutonism with adakite-like signatures: the Eocene Saraycık granodiorite (Eastern Pontides, Turkey). Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 150(4), 441-455.

Arslan, M., Temizel, I., Abdioğlu, E., Kolaylı, H., Yücel, C., Boztuğ, D., & Şen, C. (2013). 40 Ar–39 Ar dating, whole-rock and Sr–Nd–Pb isotope geochemistry of post-collisional Eocene volcanic rocks in the southern part of the Eastern Pontides (NE Turkey): implications for magma evolution in extension-induced origin. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 166(1), 113-142.

 

Topuz, G., Okay, A. I., Altherr, R., Schwarz, W. H., Siebel, W., Zack, T., ... & Şen, C. (2011). Post-collisional adakite-like magmatism in the Ağvanis Massif and implications for the evolution of the Eocene magmatism in the Eastern Pontides (NE Turkey). Lithos, 125(1-2), 131-150.

Eyuboglu, Y., Dudas, F. O., Thorkelson, D., Zhu, D. C., Liu, Z., Chatterjee, N., ... & Santosh, M. (2017). Eocene granitoids of northern Turkey: Polybaric magmatism in an evolving arc–slab window system. Gondwana Research, 50, 311-345.

Line 30-32: There is a large possibility that they are also affected by assimilation, how you rule out this problem? Did you check the Sr-Nd variations by plotting with SiO2 etc.?

Lİne 39-40 majority of your samples are already lower than sio2 54, I suggest you only pick the ones that have mg# higher than 50 and revise the plots.

Line 69: Sorry but this paper (19) did not discuss any of these problems. I suggest you check the new papers of Soltanmohammadi,

Soltanmohammadi, A., Grégoire, M., Rabinowicz, M., Gerbault, M., Ceuleneer, G., Rahgoshay, M., ... & Benoit, M. (2018). Transport of volatile-rich melt from the mantle transition zone via compaction pockets: implications for mantle metasomatism and the origin of alkaline lavas in the Turkish–Iranian plateau. Journal of Petrology, 59(12), 2273-2310.

 

or you can cite other relevant papers if you want to emphasize the similar-aged rocks in turkey

Yücel, C., Arslan, M., Temizel, I., Yazar, E. A., & Ruffet, G. (2017). Evolution of K-rich magmas derived from a net veined lithospheric mantle in an ongoing extensional setting: Geochronology and geochemistry of Eocene and Miocene volcanic rocks from Eastern Pontides (Turkey). Gondwana Research, 45, 65-86.

Göçmengil, G., KARACIK, Z., GENÇ, Ş. C., & BİLLOR, M. Z. (2018). 40Ar-39Ar geochronology and petrogenesis of postcollisional trachytic volcanism along the İzmir-Ankara-Erzincan Suture Zone (NE, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 27(1), 1-31.

Line 72: “veins surrounding peridotites” ? Veins are probably within the peridotites themselves, as shown by Pilet et al 2011

Pilet, S., Baker, M. B., Müntener, O., & Stolper, E. M. (2011). Monte Carlo simulations of metasomatic enrichment in the lithosphere and implications for the source of alkaline basalts. Journal of Petrology, 52(7-8), 1415-1442.

Line 112: Who proposes this process? Please gave citation

Line 149: Rather than citing the more local papers from turkey, I suggest you to cite more classical papers such as

Hildreth, W., & Moorbath, S. (1988). Crustal contributions to arc magmatism in the Andes of central Chile. Contributions to mineralogy and petrology, 98(4), 455-489.

Line 166-168: I don’t understand why you discuss younger rocks than your units. Please remove the discussion about quaternary- Miocene magmatism of Iran-Turkish plateau, focus on Early Cenozoic events

Line 176: Dilek’s paper did not cover that issue, also again, please stick in Early Cenozoic, these interpretations are too broad

Line 180: very sloppy figures, please be consistent in the figure symbols in terms of color, shape, and size

Line 194-200, There (h) after (d) it should be E

Besides, the last two conclusions are very chaotic and did not give any clear Picture, you should explain a bit more about the geodynamics of the region? When is the initial collision in the Iranian – Arabian platform units, you can check the different ideas of Agard or studies of Oberhansli in Eastern Anatolia, or it could be interesting to check the Works of Yawouz Kettenah of Eocene magmatic units of Kurdistan

But these conclusions section should be improved

Overall, I suggest you to gave more info about dyke swarm and gave much more info about Late Mesozoic Early Cenozoic geodynamics of the Iran-Anatolia-Arabia platelets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

1. Writing and scientific errors were eliminated as far as possible.
2. Some parts have been replaced or deleted.
3. Other items have been modified in the text of the article.

                                Best regards,

                               Amin kamali

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the manuscript. In general, the most important scientific principals were applied. However, the structure and grammar need improving. I suggest either employing a native English speaker to do proof editing for you, or use a service like Grammarly or something. As it stands, it is unacceptable and needs further work, and it distracted me from the actual science. Having said that, the science also needs improving, particulary regarding the dating and geochemistry. I would like to know what type of mean age you presented, for example? You should state this...I am assuming you mean a 206Pb/238U weighted mean age. Additionally, I feel there are are too many geochemical plots that mean nothing. For example, the Harker diagrams. I see nothing there of interest. I would like to see the latest Pearce diagrams employed to determine whether you have contamination/subduction signatures and depth of melting, and whether you have an SZLM or plume array. Please see Julian Pearce's (2008) and Pearce (2021) papers on oceanic basalts and LIP printing. With these improvements made, I feel I could review the paper more thoroughly.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

1. Writing and scientific errors were eliminated as far as possible.
2. Some parts have been replaced or deleted.
3. Other items have been modified in the text of the article.

                                Best regards,

                               Amin kamali

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents a routine but well elaborated problem of the magma source and the post-generation evolution of the silicate melt in an interesting geotectonic zone. The methods used, namely petrographic observations, the main, subordinate and trace element contents in the rocks and isotope studies, are proper to solve the questions of formation of the studied dyke rocks. The applied laboratory methods are well selected and sufficiently exactly described. Thus, although the results do not present general new ideas, but they are a useful extension of the geological knowledge concerning the plate collision zone in the northern Iran. In my opinion the manuscript is of an adequate value to publication.

Nevertheless, before its publication the text needs some correction, mostly linguistic and typographic. Some jargon expressions should be changed to precise terms, as it is proper for the scientific article. Moreover, strange uses of the capital letters etc. are minute mistakes. My individual remarks are added to the manuscript as sticky notes.

My conclusion is, that after the above corrections the manuscript may be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

1. Writing and scientific errors were eliminated as far as possible.
2. Some parts have been replaced or deleted.
3. Other items have been modified in the text of the article.

                                Best regards,

                               Amin kamali

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, even though the article improved a bit, I saw several bad grammar usages and a couple of little problems in the text. I highlighted several of them in the attached paper.

I think ms can be improved a bit more, especially in terms of grammar and after that, it can be suitable for publication

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

1. Writing and scientific errors were eliminated as far as possible

. 2. Some parts have been replaced or deleted.

Best regards, Amin kamali

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I require a version with track changes so that I can assess the amount of revision. The authors rebuttal at present is not acceptable to me.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

1. Writing and scientific errors were eliminated as far as possible.
2. Some parts have been replaced or deleted.

Best regards,

Amin kamali

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I would (still) like to see what type of weighted mean age it is, and what is the discordance...this does not appear to have been corrected...

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

1- Writing and scientific errors were eliminated as far as possible.

2-Geochemical diagrams, including Harker diagrams, were removed from the article.

3- Fig. 13 shows that all rocks are displaced to high Th/Yb ratios relative to the mantle array. Although the effects of crustal contamination on magma compositions are difficult to distinguish from those of metasomatism by subduction processes, the significantly high Th/Yb ratio for the most basic sample rocks is unlikely to be explained solely by crustal contamination Pearce (2008) . Petrographical evidences such as the existence of xenoliths and reaction rims not confirm the role of crustal contamination and fractional crystallization in the evolution of the study rocks.  Also, not variation diagrams of trace elements, spider diagrams together with AFC modeling and ratio-ratio (Th/Yb-Nb/Yb) diagrams of trace elements, highlights the role of crustal contamination and magmatic fractionation in the Dykes of the rocks studied. Their primitive mantle normalized trace elemental patterns display enrichment in LILEs compared to HFSEs, and positive Rb, Pb, Ba, Sr and U but negative Ta, Ti, Nb, Pr, and Zr anomalies, carrying characteristics subduction-related magmatism and metasomatism by subduction-related fluids. The petrogenesis of the northeast of Meshkinshahr dikes are related to melting of the lithospheric mantle, and upwelling asthenospheric mantle in the extensional basin which was associated with the subduction.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx