Geochemistry and Geochronology (U-Pb and Lu-Hf) of the Soarinho Alkaline Massif (Brazil): Implications on Mantle versus Crustal Signature of Syenitic Magma

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The English language is well written and of high quality.

The paper presents valuable ages, petrographic and geochemical data, as well as Lu-Hf isotopic data for the syenitic rocks. It is concise and engaging, making it easily understandable for readers. However, the paper lacks a thorough discussion on the research's significance, which should be addressed and included. This aspect is a weakness of the paper. Therefore, a moderate revision should be undertaken to enhance its overall quality. Nonetheless, the paper is commendable as it offers valuable information on alkaline magmatism.

More revisions are as follows:

Line 52-55, It is suggested that the significance of your work should be clearly clarified here, emphasizing not only what you have accomplished that others have not, but also the meaningful contributions it brings to the field.

Line 61, the correct term for the "sin-sollisional granties" is "syn-collisional granites"

Line 63, km2 should be revised as km²

Line 186, there are only 4 pictures here, the figure caption is clearly incorrect. Please delete “and (B)” in the first sentence; revise the “Name (C) to (F)” to “Name (B) to (D)” in the second sentence based on the pictures above.

Line 225, it is not grammatically correct, please change “about” into “compared to”;

Line 237, The description is not adequate. I believe that the negative anomalies are also significant and should be duly acknowledged.

Line 249, 58+2 should be revised as 58±2.

Line 255, with MSWD = 0 should be 0.0065.

Line 258, add “and nepheline syenite (D)”.

Line 309, the same problem with Line 225.

Fig.1, please include the rectangular box from Figure 2 within Figure 1.

Fig.10, please add the lithology or sample number in each diagram and ensure clear notations in the figure caption to provide comprehensive information.

Fig.11, the same revisions with Fig.10 need to be applied to Figure 11 as well.

Fig.12, please add the lithology or sample number in each diagram.

Author Response

First, we would like to thank you for reviewing this study. The comments and suggestions presented were extremely valuable and pertinent. Your contribution was essential to improve the quality of our paper. After a detailed analysis of the comments and questions, as well as the errors pointed out and suggestions contained in the opinions sent to us, the article underwent some changes, which are indicated below.

Thank you very much in advance,

Sincerely yours,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents new geochronological and geochemical data for the Soarinho Intrusive Complex. My overall impression is that the manuscript is worthy of publication after a major revision.

1) Lines 11-20: the Abstract is rather general and sweeping, and more new, conclusive understandings should be supplied. 

2) The introduction also needs some wider context. Remember that not all readers will know about geology of the study area. Please give spatial and temporal distribution of magmatic rocks and an overview of the tectonic setting. In addition, nature of the regional basement also should be added.

3) Geochemical data for four lithologic units are present in this study. Therefore, each lithological unit should be displayed by single legend in the figures 8, 9 and 14.

4) the rock names should be marked on the figures 10 and 12.

5) lines 236-238: the monzonites show significant depletions in Ba and Sr in figure 11.

6) I believe the paper would be significantly strengthened by a better structured discussion, especially Section 8. This study gives high-quality geochemical data, but the Section 8 is perfunctory. I would suggest the authors focus more on discussing the petrogenesis, magma source, magmatic process and tectonic setting.

7) the Conclusions should be rewritten.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

First, we would like to thank you for reviewing this study. The comments and suggestions presented were extremely valuable and pertinent. Your contribution was essential to improve the quality of our paper. After a detailed analysis of the comments and questions, as well as the errors pointed out and suggestions contained in the opinions sent to us, the article underwent some changes, which are indicated below.

Thank you very much in advance,

Sincerely yours,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Overall the language is quite adequate. I suggested some change on the use of some terms.

Author Response

First, we would like to thank you for reviewing this study. The comments and suggestions presented were extremely valuable and pertinent. Your contribution was essential to improve the quality of our paper. After a detailed analysis of the comments and questions, as well as the errors pointed out and suggestions contained in the opinions sent to us, the article underwent some changes, which are indicated below.

Thank you very much in advance,

Sincerely yours,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report