Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have really struggled with this manuscript.  My sense is that the science is fine, but the context of the study and the implications and significance are very hard to understand because of the extensive use of nonidiomatic English.

The manuscript badly needs to be edited, working with the authors, by someone with excellent idiomatic English language capabilities.  Then is should be resubmitted for review.

I can't answer the other questions above because I can't really understand what the authors are trying to say about significance, etc.

 

Author Response

Replies to Reviewers and Editor:
First of all, thanks a lot for the constructive suggestions and comments from the editor and anonymous reviewers on both English and science. We believe that this manuscript can not be perfect without the valuable comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to modify the text based on the constructive comments. Great changes, marked in red, were made in responding to these valuable comments. We believe that this revised manuscript can meet the requirements based on the comments and suggestions. The detailed point-by-point responses are as following: Response to Reviewer 1:

Major comments:

1. Comment: “I have really struggled with this manuscript. My sense is that the science is fine, but the context of the study and the implications and significance are very hard to understand because of the extensive use of nonidiomatic English.

The manuscript badly needs to be edited, working with the authors, by someone with excellent idiomatic English language capabilities.  Then is should be resubmitted for review.

I can't answer the other questions above because I can't really understand what the authors are trying to say about significance, etc.”

Response: Thanks for the critical comments on the English expressions. According to the comments from the dear reviewer, we have exhaustively checked and revised the English expressions of the whole text, which were marked in red. Hoping this version could satisfy the reviewer. We also thank and welcome the valuable comments for the next round of reviews from the dear reviewer.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the pdf version.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Replies to Reviewers and Editor:
First of all, thanks a lot for the constructive suggestions and comments from the anonymous reviewer on both English and science. We believe that this manuscript can not be perfect without the valuable comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to modify the text based on the constructive comments. Great changes, marked in red, were made in responding to these valuable comments. We believe that this revised manuscript can meet the requirements based on the comments and suggestions. The detailed point-by-point responses are as following: Response to Reviewer 2:

Major comments:

1. Comment: “Consider to clarify and extend the abstract by geochemical data to understand the genetic relationship of the deposit with the related volcanism. It is not enough to put forward such a complex genetic relationship mainly based on age data.”

Response: Thanks for the insightful comments on this issue. Honestly, the studies on the mineralization of the Xiaotian Basin were very limited, resulting in the lack of the geological information of this region. So far, no detailed work was carried out on the Saozhouhe alunite deposit and these nearby gold deposits. Our finding confirms that the alunite and gold mineralization in the Xiaotian Basin were caused by the final volcanic activities in the Xiaotian Basin. But these discussions on the supposed ore prospecting were deleted to make the work more convincing. This revised version mainly focus on the alunite and gold mineralization which were likely caused by the Cretaceous volcanic activities in the Xiaotian Basin, which were verified by the age data in this study. Therefore, the discussions on the supposed ore prospecting were deleted. Details can be found in the Section of Discussions.

 

2. Comment: “It is not easy to follow. Please provide a general geological map and then include the study area. Figure 1a does not represent anything for the readers.

According to the text, i understood that the geology of the study are was mapped by the authors, therefore more field data may be helpful to understand the genetic relationship (e.g. subvolcanic intusions, clear geological relation (Fig 3 a and b is not clear to follow) and as well as the deposit petrography with detailed geochemistry will improve the paper.”

Response: Thanks for the valuable comment and suggestion. We have modified the Figure 1a as suggested. In addition, the Figure 1b was also re-drawn to provide more geological information. However, as for the figure 3a and 3b, we have to say sorry for that it is hard to cite some new pictures, since the deposit was shut down for a long time.  

3. Comment: “Is it modified or done by the authors. Coloring the map is needed to understand the geological info as well as a schematic columnar section will be helpful for the readers as well”

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments. The Figure 1 and Figure 2 were both revised as suggested. Details can be found in Figure 1 and 2.

 

4. Comment: “For LA analysis, according to the scale given in Fig 4. there are no grains more that 50um. However in the MS, it is situated that 100um grains exist. It looks like some of the CL images clearly indicate core structure in the zircons and the spots are covering both rims and cores. These are likely off the concord however, it will be interesting to date them separately. And also i did not understand why the zircons morphology look like they are cracked or so...In the andesites it is likely to find euhedral zircon grains. However here only few show clear magmatic origin.”

Response: Thanks for the careful review. It is our fault to make a mistake that the proportional scale in the Figure 4 should be 100 μm. Hence, the new version was revised. Some zircon grains were truly characterized by the rim-core structure as indicated by the reviewer, but most of the zircon grains show rim features, representing magmatic origin for most of these zircons. As for that why zircons morphology look like they are cracked, we guess that some of them might be influenced by the crushing machine.

 

5. Comment: “The researchers need to extend the data input in TAble 1. For somehow the Pb concentration and isotope ratios of 207Pb/206Pb is not presented here.”

Response: We have revised this table as suggested. In addition, the  of the manuscript as commented. In addition, ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb ratios and Pb contents were added in the revised table.

 

6. Comment: “I can not follow on that however the closure temperature of the alunite is likely lower than the zircons (not above 200 C)”

Response: It is ture that the closure temperature of the alunite is much lower than the zircons as indicated by the reviewer. As a mineral which contain potassium, the alunite is an ideal mineral to be dated via the Ar-Ar dating methods, since the heating process will lead to the release of ³⁹Ar. In this study, the total release of ³⁹Ar was up to 89.5%, indicating that the age is reliable in this experiment.

 

7. Comment: “There is no need to put this table here. Mentioning in the text is enough.”

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have deleted this table as suggested.  

 

8. Comment: “As an overall comment, a genetic relation of deposits is unlikely based on the geochronological data. Further data such as geochemical and detailed petrographical approach is needed-”

Response: Thanks for the insightful comments on this issue. Honestly, the studies on the mineralization of the Xiaotian Basin were very limited, resulting in the lack of the geological information of this region. So far, no detailed work was carried out on the Saozhouhe alunite deposit and these nearby gold deposits. Our finding confirms that the alunite and gold mineralization in the Xiaotian Basin were caused by the final volcanic activities in the Xiaotian Basin. But these discussions on the supposed ore prospecting were deleted to make the work more convincing.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the minor points in the pdf. file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Replies to Reviewers and Editor:
First of all, thanks a lot for the constructive suggestions and comments from the anonymous reviewer on both English and science. We believe that this manuscript can not be perfect without the valuable comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to modify the text based on the constructive comments. Great changes, marked in red, were made in responding to these valuable comments. We believe that this revised manuscript can meet the requirements based on the comments and suggestions. The detailed point-by-point responses are as following: Response to Reviewer 2:

Major comments:

1. Comment: “It is recomended to give a columnar section of the study area- The MS is about the alunite deposit, however there is no scaled presentation of the lithology and/or deposit- The formation is indicated, however, it is not clear for the reader”

Response: Thanks for the insightful comments on this issue. The columnar section of the study area (named as Figure 1c) has been added as suggested. In addition, the detailed ore reserves were also provided. Since the deposit has been shut down for years, the data profoundly lack. Then, some figures as suggested is hard to provide.

 

2. Comment: “Please indicate the ore body label not exactly on top of the deposit. From the view of the photo, it is only seen a green portion of it.

Response: Thanks for the valuable comment and suggestion. It is ture that only green plants from the view of Figure 3a with no sign of the ore bodies. But we have to say sorry for this issue, it is hard to provide some new figures. Due to the shut down of the deposit, the orebodies were covered by green plants. In addition, the figure is trying to tell the location of the alunite ore bodies, as well as the relationship between the ore bodies and the surrounding andesitic porphyrite.  

3. Comment: “Matrix? The d photo is not needed. it is already indicated in photo c. It this andesitic porphyrite rich in quartz? To be a porphyrtic texture- according to the scale, it is a bit tiny though!”

Response: Thanks for the valuable comments. Compared with phenocryst, the matrix is composed of the tinny minerals. The figure 3d provides some proofs which did not contain in figure 3c, for example, the metallic minerals. So we think that this figure is necessary. In addition, we still appreciate the careful review from the kind reviewer.

As for the issue of the porphyrtic texture, we think that the andesitic porphyrite in this study contain a typical porphyrtic texture, since the phenocryst and matrix is easy to be distinguished.  

  

4. Comment: “The placement of the Fig 6 should be before discussion part”

Response: Thanks for the wonderful suggestion. The placement of the Figure 6 is rearranged as suggested.