Geology, Mineralization and Development Potential of Rare and Uncommon Earth Ore Deposits in Southwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have conducted a detailed review study on rare and rare earth mineral deposits in the southwestern region, basically summarizing the magmatic and mineralization ages, rock genesis, mineralization background, and the relationship between magmatic evolution and mineralization related to rare and rare earth mineralization in the region. This is of great significance for a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between alkaline magmatism and the mineralization of rare and rare earth elements. There are still some issues in the article for reference during revision:

1. The text is rather verbose. It is recommended to simplify it, pay attention to the use of professional terms, and correct some typos, such as "enriched light rare main elements" in the abstract.
2. Ensure consistency in semantics throughout the text. In the previous part, syenite was divided into "ore" and "country rock", but later it was referred to as "ore-bearing rock" and "country rock". It is recommended to unify the terms. Especially in the petrology section, it is not clear whether nepheline syenite and alkaline granite are ore-bearing, related to mineralization, ore, or country rock. It is suggested to explain how to distinguish between ore and country rock.
3. The abstract is recommended to be simplified, including summaries of petrography, geochemistry, age, and isotopes, and a brief introduction to the conclusions. 
4. Since the ages are not the author's own test results, it is recommended to properly cite the sources.
5. The Chinese annotations in Figure 4 are recommended to be changed to English.
6. Can the equal sign be used instead of "mass fraction" to make it simpler and clearer?
7. It is recommended to combine the discussions on major elements and rare earth elements for better organization.
8. In the statistical table, it is not clear whether the content in parentheses under the "rock type" column refers to ore bodies or ore. It is recommended to add the name of the deposit and not just the rock type.
9. In the conclusion section, the significance of comparing deposits regionally should be proposed.
10. It is recommended to first discuss the tectonic background of the large region and then compare it with the study area to adjust the logical sequence.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language used in the manuscript is not sufficiently academic, and there are numerous grammatical errors that hinder readability. The authors should thoroughly edit the manuscript to improve its clarity and follow formal academic writing conventions.

Author Response

We would like to express our genuine gratitude for your constructive comments on our manuscript. Your suggestions have been of vital importance to improving the overall quality and completeness of this work. We have meticulously reviewed each of the questions you raised and made necessary revisions at the corresponding locations, with all modifications marked in red. The following provides a detailed, point-by-point response to your editorial comments:

Q1. The text is rather verbose. It is recommended to simplify it, pay attention to the use of professional terms, and correct some typos, such as "enriched light srare main elements" in the abstract.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The manuscript has been carefully revised as follows: (1) redundant content in the Preface section has been removed; (2) the key research findings have been concisely summarized (highlighted in red in the text); (3) overly detailed descriptions in sections including "Regional Geological Setting" and "Alterations and Mineralization" have been streamlined. Through these revisions, the total length of the manuscript has been significantly reduced from the original 34,140 words to 27,410 words.

Q2. Ensure consistency in semantics throughout the text. In the previous part, syenite was divided into "ore" and "country rock", but later it was referred to as "ore-bearing rock" and "country rock". It is recommended to unify the terms. Especially in the petrology section, it is not clear whether nepheline syenite and alkaline granite are ore-bearing, related to mineralization, ore, or country rock. It is suggested to explain how to distinguish between ore and country rock.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The country rock of the carbonate complex is alkali-feldspar granite, and the contact metasomatic aureole between the carbonate complex and the country rock is mainly fenitization. Syenite constitutes the principal component of the carbonate-alkaline complex, exhibiting dual geological significance: it serves as the main host rock for REE ore bodies; the veinlet-disseminated mineralization developed within it may form economic ore bodies; while simultaneously acting as the parent rock that provided essential material sources for REE mineralization. In contrast, granite porphyry shows no direct genetic relationship with mineralization, which has been explicitly clarified in the revised manuscript. The relevant subsection has been comprehensively rewritten and highlighted in red ( in lines 745 to 760 ).

Q3. The abstract is recommended to be simplified, including summaries of petrography, geochemistry, age, and isotopes, and a brief introduction to the conclusions.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The abstract and concluding remarks have been streamlined by removing verbose descriptions to enhance clarity and conciseness. Substantial revisions have been made to the petrographic, geochemical, geochronological and isotopic descriptions of four representative REE deposits (including the Muchuan deposit), with all rewritten sections highlighted in red for easy identification.

Q4. Since the ages are not the author's own test results, it is recommended to properly cite the sources.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. All age data presented in the manuscript have been carefully verified and properly re-cited, with selective reduction in the number of age results referenced.

Q5. The Chinese annotations in Figure 4 are recommended to be changed to English.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The Chinese text in Figure 4 have been translated into English and reintegrated into the manuscript.

Q6. Can the equal sign be used instead of "mass fraction" to make it simpler and clearer?

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The term "mass fraction" in the text has been replaced with an equal sign (=) to provide clearer and more direct data representation.

Q7. It is recommended to combine the discussions on major elements and rare earth elements for better organization.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The analytical results of major and trace elements from multiple subsections (including but not limited to 3.2.7 and 3.4.5) have been systematically integrated for comprehensive discussion, thereby significantly improving the clarity and completeness of data interpretation.

Q8. In the statistical table, it is not clear whether the content in parentheses under the "rock type" column refers to ore bodies or ore. It is recommended to add the name of the deposit and not just the rock type.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In Table 3, the "Rock Type" column represents various rock types sampled from different locations of the Xuanwei Formation. A new "Deposit/Area" column has been added to specify the sample collection sites.

Q9. In the conclusion section, the significance of comparing deposits regionally should be proposed.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The conclusions have been substantially revised to clearly present key findings, particularly Conclusion (2): The systematic comparison reveals distinct REE mineralization patterns - predominantly sedimentary-weathering types in the eastern Southwest China versus orogenic magmatism-related types in the west. This contrast not only elucidates regional metallogenic regularity but also provides scientific basis for cross-regional resource assessment and optimized exploration strategies, offering significant implications for understanding the spatial distribution and genetic types of REE deposits within regional tectonic framework.

Q10. It is recommended to first discuss the tectonic background of the large region and then compare it with the study area to adjust the logical sequence.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The regional geological setting section has been supplemented with information on regional tectonics, presenting the major tectonic changes in the southwestern region (Yangtze Block) from the Paleoproterozoic to the Cenozoic in chronological order. This evolutionary process allows for comparison with the regions where the deposits are located.

 

 

Sincerely

Gao Yang

2205910489@qq.com

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments and suggestions are shown in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review and valuable comments on our manuscript titled "Geology, Mineralization and Development Potential of Rare and Uncommon Earth Ore Deposits in Southwest China" (ID: minerals-3539748). Your expert suggestions have provided crucial guidance for improving the quality of this paper, particularly in terms of terminological accuracy, clarity of expression, and scientific rigor. We have carefully addressed all the raised issues and implemented the corresponding revisions, with the modified sections highlighted in red (if applicable). And the detailed corrections are listed below.

Language and Terminology Revisions

1. Spelling and Grammar

Line 75: Removed the redundant letter "p" in "prefacep," corrected to "preface."

Line 101: Changed "had" to "has" to align with the present tense context.

Line 462: Adjusted verb tense, replacing "were" with "are."

Line 2238: Revised "had" to "hosts" for subject-verb agreement.

2. Standardization of Terminology

Lines 212–215, etc.: Replaced "superregion" with "stratigraphic region" to conform to geological conventions.

Line 637: Changed "schistositization" to "schistosity," using the standard geological term. 

Lines 638, 894, 2050, etc.: Updated "intermediate-acid" to "intermediate-felsic," adopting the mainstream description.

Line 723: Replaced "porphyraceous" with "porphyritic" for more accurate rock texture characterization.

Line 2149: Revised "magmatic" to "igneous" for better contextual consistency. 

3. Removal of Redundant Terms

Lines 1139, 1195, 1221, 1227, 1230, 1280, 1705, 2108: Deleted unnecessary or redundant terms such as "crystallitic," "pronouncedly," "pegmatoidal," "REEs," "stage," "inclusion," "symbiotic," and "stably."

Improvements in Clarity and Logical Flow

1. Enhanced Readability

Line 364: Clarified the description of unrendered areas (regions unaffected by limonite staining) and revised the sentence to: "The absence of limonite staining results in a distinct grayish-white coloration in this zone."

Line 1360: Restructured the sentence to: "The Alkaline Rock-Carbonatite-Type Rare Earth Element (REE) Deposit, represented by the super-large Maoniuping deposit..."

Line 2037: Simplified the phrasing to: "syn-collisional arc granite and diorite porphyries were developed in the northwestern Yunnan region."

2. Optimization of Headings and Sections

Line 950: Revised the heading to "Rock type" for better alignment with the content.

Line 1765: Corrected to "Laniping-Type Paleo-Conglomerate-Hosted Copper Deposit" to specify the deposit type more clearly.

3. Scientific Consistency

Line 2139: Added the full term "Trivalent rare earth element ions" for "REE³⁺."

Lines 993, 1437, 2008: Unified "strata" as "rock units" to avoid terminological ambiguity.

Line 2256: Standardized scientific notation to "250×10⁴ t."

Special Notes on Key Revisions

1. Controversial Modifications

Line 1801: Removed the term "dust-spot-shaped" as per the reviewer’s suggestion.

Line 2040: Replaced "remaining" with "surviving" to more accurately describe the persistence of the Tethyan marine environment.

2. Figures and References

Line 401: Ensured all text in the figure is presented in English. 

 

Sincerely

Gao Yang

2205910489@qq.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Current version can be accepted

Author Response

On behalf of our research team, I would like to express our sincere gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript amidst your busy schedule. We truly appreciate your recognition of our work's scientific content and value.