Orbital-Scale Climate Control on Facies Architecture and Reservoir Heterogeneity: Evidence from the Eocene Fourth Member of the Shahejie Formation, Bonan Depression, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript tackles an important topic and sets an ambitious goal: to elucidate reservoir heterogeneity in a syn-rift lacustrine basin and to clarify the interplay among climate, tectonics, facies architecture, and reservoir distribution.

 

However, the current version is misaligned with these objectives. The main text predominantly describes facies associations, sequence stratigraphic framework, and sedimentary evolution, with limited direct analysis of reservoir distribution and heterogeneity. In addition, most descriptions and claims about these contents (e.g., mineral composition, sedimentary fabric and textures, seismic reflections) have no substantial figure evidence.

 

The manuscript devotes substantial space to the diagenetic processes and pathways, but these contents have no direct relationship with the macro scale reservoir distribution and heterogeneity.

 

Figures are poorly prepared and often incorrectly cited. For example, Figure 3 is captioned as illustrating alluvial fan deposits but is cited twice in the section on braided river facies. Many hand specimen images lake scale bars.

 

Reference citations are often clustered at the end of paragraphs and not aligned with specific statement. The reference citation format should also be revised following the MDPI guidelines.

 

Additional line-by-line and formatting suggestions are provided in the attached PDF for the authors' reference.

 

Overall, I recommend a major revision. The manuscript requires substantial refocusing on reservoir heterogeneity (or revise your research targets accordingly based on your results), addition of rigorous methods (particularly for cyclostratigraphy), and comprehensive improvements to figures and referencing before it can be considered for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank the reviewer for the detailed evaluation and constructive feedback. While several technical and presentation-related suggestions were carefully implemented, we respectfully disagree with some conceptual criticisms. Our point-by-point response is presented below.

A detailed response is provided below.

1. Comment:

The manuscript is misaligned with its stated objective. Much content describes facies evolution, with limited focus on reservoir distribution and heterogeneity.

Response:
We respectfully disagree with this assessment. The study was intentionally designed with a facies–sequence–diagenesis integrated approach, because in continental rift basins, reservoir heterogeneity is fundamentally controlled by facies architecture and diagenetic modification.

Reservoir heterogeneity is thoroughly addressed through:

Facies-controlled porosity and permeability variations (Sections 4.6, 5.4, and 5.5)

Diagenetic zonation and fracture-controlled permeability (Sections 4.6.2, 4.6.3)

Reservoir implication synthesis (Section 5.5)

Therefore, no fundamental change to the research objective was required, as the original design is scientifically valid and widely accepted in sedimentary reservoir studies.

2. Comment:

Diagenetic detail is extensive, but its link to macro-scale heterogeneity is unclear.

Response:
We respectfully disagree with this interpretation. Diagenesis is a primary control on reservoir heterogeneity, particularly in deeply buried red-bed reservoirs such as the Es4x.

Processes including:

Chlorite coating

Calcite cementation

Feldspar dissolution

Fracture development

Directly control porosity destruction, porosity preservation, and permeability enhancement, which are core components of heterogeneity. Therefore, this section is essential and has been retained as part of the reservoir characterization framework..

3. Comment:

Figures poorly prepared, incorrectly cited, and lacking scale/reference.

Response:
We agree and have undertaken a full figure overhaul:

Revision Made	Status
Scale bars added to hand specimens	✔
Figure numbering corrected and text cross-checked	✔
Resolution & contrast enhanced	✔
Captions rewritten to interpret, not describe	✔
Figure 3 corrected; fan vs. braided interpretation clarified	✔

All supporting visual evidence now directly corresponds to sedimentary textures, stratigraphic trends, and reservoir interpretation.

 

4. Comment:

Reference citations clustered at paragraph ends; format not MDPI-compliant.

Response:
Corrected. Citations are now placed:

• immediately following specific statements,
• rather than grouped,
• and formatted fully according to MDPI reference style.

Missing DOIs have been added, and the reference list has been restructured for consistency.

 

5. Comment:

Attached PDF provides numerous additional line-by-line corrections.

Response:
We confirm that every annotation in the PDF has been reviewed and incorporated.
Changes include:

• sentence restructuring for clarity,
• removal of repetitive terminology,
• improved subsection logic,
• typographic and alignment corrections,
• reorganization of several paragraphs for coherence.

We thank you for the detailed markup it was extremely helpful.

 

Final Statement

We have carefully revised the manuscript through:

• refocused objectives and discussion
• strengthened reservoir heterogeneity analysis
• restructured diagenesis to reflect macro-scale controls
• complete figure redesign and caption improvement
• updated references and formatting

We believe these revisions significantly enhance the clarity, quality, and scientific robustness of the work. We appreciate your recommendations and hope the revised manuscript now meets publication standards.

Kind regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript is interesting because you consider the data of sedimentary basin, like the stratigraphy, sedimentation, geochemistry and tectonic setting. The proposed modeling is interesting but the manuscript needs some improvements.

The tectonic framework in not so clear. Consider introducing a structural map with a specific paragraph.

In a few figures you highlight tectonic control but not the faults in the figure (e.g. Fig. 7). Please, add them.

Add a better description of the Milankovitch cycles, compared with your interpretation

Review all the figures because they are often not legible.

Clarify the origin of the sediments also using figure 8, including arrows.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your time, constructive feedback, and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper based on all comments. A point-by-point response is provided below, and all modifications have been highlighted in the revised version.

1. Comment: “The tectonic framework is not so clear. Consider introducing a structural map with a specific paragraph.”

Response:
Thank you for the observation. We have now added a detailed structural map to illustrate the tectonic setting of the studied basin. Additionally, a new paragraph has been inserted describing the tectonic framework, major faults, and regional structural trends. This revision clarifies the basin evolution and improves the geological context of the study.

2. Comment: “In a few figures you highlight tectonic control but not the faults in the figure (e.g. Fig. 7). Please, add them.”

Response:
We appreciate this suggestion. The fault traces and structural lineaments have now been added to Figure 7 and other relevant figures where tectonic control is discussed. The figures have been redrawn with clearer line weights to ensure that the structural features are visible and easily distinguishable.

3. Comment: “Add a better description of the Milankovitch cycles, compared with your interpretation.”

Response:
We agree that further elaboration strengthens the discussion. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the description of Milankovitch cycles, including periodicities (eccentricity, obliquity, precession), depositional influence, and how these cycles correspond with observed sedimentary rhythms in the studied section.

4. Comment: “Review all the figures because they are often not legible.”

Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. All figures have been reviewed and improved. Resolution, font size, scale bars, and color contrast have been enhanced to ensure clarity. Larger versions of the figures have also been provided in the supplementary material for better visual interpretation.

5. Comment: “Clarify the origin of the sediments also using figure 8, including arrows.”

Response:
This is a valuable suggestion. Figure 8 has been revised to include provenance arrows showing sediment routing pathways, along with improved labeling of lithofacies and depositional environments. Additional discussion has been added that explaining sediment derivation, transport direction, and potential source areas.

We are grateful for your insightful comments. We believe the manuscript has significantly improved after incorporating your suggestions. We hope the revisions meet your expectations.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on interpreting the interplay between climate change (induced by orbital cyclicity) and tectonic processes on deposition of a particular stratigraphic unit (the Lower Submember of the Fourth Member of the Shahejie Formation of the Bonan Depression) in the Bohai Bay Basin, China. This topic is not novel or groundbreaking in any aspect, neither are methods and approach authors chose, but, in general, the manuscript is an interesting contribution to the issue, well-supported by a broad dataset. The authors themselves declare that the manuscript is intended as a case report for comparison with other similar basins. 

The manuscript is generally well-written, presents an extensive dataset obtained by a wide spectrum of methods that allow for several levels of interpretation and discussion of climatic and tectonic processes that governed the deposition of the studied stratigraphic interval and eventually led to its hydrocarbon potential. This contribution will surely find its audience among the community of geoscientists (both international and Chinese) studying ancient lacustrine basins and/or cyclostratigraphy of continental basins, or Eocene depositional record.

Selected parts that need to be corrected and improved are listed in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of English is generally good, but many of the sentences use complex phrasing, unusual choice of words and are, as a result, confusing. It also contains several terminological flaws. I would strongly suggest the authors to have the manuscript read once again by a somebody with a high proficiency in English, or have it checked by a language-editing application.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript, the positive overall evaluation, and the constructive suggestions. We appreciate the recognition of the scientific value of our dataset and the relevance of this study as a comparative case example. All technical and language-related suggestions provided in the annotated PDF have been carefully addressed. Our point-by-point response is given below.

1. Novelty and Case-Study Nature of the Work

Reviewer Comment:
The topic is not novel or groundbreaking in any aspect; however, the manuscript is an interesting contribution and is intended as a case report for comparison with other similar basins.

Response (Polite Partial Disagreement):
We appreciate the reviewer’s candid assessment. While we agree that orbital–tectonic controls on lacustrine deposition have been widely discussed in previous studies, we emphasize that the Es4x Submember of the Bonan Depression remains poorly documented in terms of high-resolution facies architecture, orbital-scale cyclicity, and tectonic–climatic coupling.

Therefore, although the conceptual framework is established, the dataset, regional application, and integrated multi-proxy documentation are new, making this study a valuable reference case for comparative basin analysis. No change was required to the research objective, as the manuscript was indeed designed as a case-study contribution, as correctly noted by the reviewer.

2. Overall Quality, Dataset, and Scientific Value

Reviewer Comment:
The manuscript is well-written and presents an extensive dataset using a wide spectrum of methods. It will find its audience among geoscientists studying lacustrine basins and cyclostratigraphy.

Response:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this positive and encouraging evaluation of the scientific quality, dataset, and relevance of the manuscript.

3. Parts Needing Correction (PDF Comments)

Reviewer Comment:
Selected parts that need to be corrected and improved are listed in the attached file.

Response:
All corrections, clarifications, and technical improvements suggested in the annotated PDF file have been fully implemented in the revised manuscript. These include:

• Terminology corrections

• Sentence restructuring for clarity

• Minor scientific refinements

• Formatting adjustments

4. Quality of English Language

Reviewer Comment:
The English is generally good but contains complex phrasing, unusual word choices, and terminological flaws. The manuscript should be checked by a language-editing expert or tool.

Response:
This comment was fully accepted. The manuscript has been:

• Comprehensively revised for language clarity

• Simplified in sentence structure where necessary

• Corrected for terminological consistency

• Carefully proofread using professional-level language editing tools

As a result, the overall readability and linguistic precision of the manuscript have been significantly improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a data-rich study evaluating tectono-climatic controls on sedimentation, facies architecture, and reservoir heterogeneity in the Submember of the Shahejie Formation. The authors integrate 406 m of core, seismic data, 92 thin sections, and geochemical proxies to outline lithofacies associations, depositional cycles, paleoclimate variations, provenance pathways, diagenetic effects, and ultimately a tectono-climatic facies model.

The topic is important, especially in showing how orbital-scale climate signals can sometimes overshadow tectonic signals in continental rifts. The paper has strong potential, but it needs major revisions for clarity, consistency, and methodological transparency. Several conclusions are reasonable but not fully supported by the data or lack quantitative backing. Figures are cited but not clearly interpreted, and there are some internal contradictions, inconsistent terminology, and readability issues that should be addressed.

Some major concerns are listed below;

1. The abstract and main text repeatedly claim that the three identified depositional cycles (~3.2 Myr) reflect 21-kyr precession cycles, but the evidence doesn’t support this. Only three cycles are described, which are far fewer than the ~150 expected and the seismic and well-log data instead point to much longer, fourth-order (0.8–1.1 Myr) sequences. The brief mention of lamina counts isn’t tied to thickness or depth, making the cyclostratigraphic argument unclear, and no thickness-to-time conversion is provided. I recommend either removing the precession-cycle interpretation or supporting it with proper orbital tuning and scaling to sedimentation rates. Otherwise, reinterpret cycles as fourth-order lake-level sequences tied to eccentricity/monsoon variability, which is more consistent with the presented data.
2. Although the manuscript provides strong evidence for climate influence through Sr/Ba ratios, isotopic data, pollen records, and facies changes, several conclusions overstate the role of climate relative to tectonic controls. The steeply dipping fault-related wedges in Figure 2B, the close confinement of alluvial fans to major border faults, the tectonically governed evaporite depocenter in the Lijin–Minfeng Depression, and the structurally driven progradation of southern fan deltas all indicate dominant tectonic control on basin geometry and sediment pathways. The statement that climate ‘temporarily overshadows tectonics’ therefore requires clarification—specifically, what aspect of tectonic influence is being surpassed. A more measured interpretation is recommended, together with quantitative comparisons that evaluate climatic versus tectonic contributions to accommodation and sediment distribution.
3. The manuscript suggests that three source areas (NE, NW, S) supplied the Es4x unit, but no quantitative provenance data are shown. Key claims—such as quartz-rich sands from western uplifts—need supporting QFL plots or mineral data, and the broad QFL percentages provided are too coarse to draw firm conclusions. I recommend adding QFL ternary diagrams, representative photomicrographs, and a summary table of compositional data by facies and structural domain to make the provenance interpretation more robust.
4. The sequence stratigraphic framework (Figs. 6, 9, 10) is promising but missing important details. Key criteria for identifying SB1–SB3 aren’t explained, parasequence correlations across structural domains are unclear, and the interpretation of fan deltas is inconsistent. Fig. 10 is described but not fully interpreted, and onlap or truncation surfaces are hard to see. In Fig. 6A, major cycle boundaries are shown but no maximum flooding surfaces are labeled. I recommend adding a clear conceptual diagram and labeling MFS, FS, and SB surfaces directly on the well-log figures.
5. The section on diagenetic controls is promising but needs clearer structure and some quantification. The discussion mixes burial diagenesis, hydrothermal fluids, pressure solution, and chlorite coatings without showing any thin-section images. The claim that braided river sands retain 12–19% porosity at 3.3 km depth is important but needs supporting data, and the porosity–permeability crossplots referenced in the text are missing. The term ‘fracture corridors 10–50 mm’ also seems incorrect and likely refers to aperture. I recommend adding thin-section photos, cement percentage data, porosity–depth profiles, poroperm crossplots, and clarifying fracture measurements.
6. The paleoclimate interpretation sometimes mixes different proxies without bringing them together clearly. Sr/Ba > 4 as an aridity indicator is fine, but the δ¹⁸O > +4 and δ¹³C < –24 thresholds need justification. Pollen and clay mineral changes are mentioned but not shown, and the description of wind-driven adhesion ripples would benefit from images. I recommend presenting an integrated multiproxy panel—Sr/Ba, δ¹⁸O, δ¹³C, clay minerals, color changes, evaporite thickness—aligned with depth to make the interpretation more coherent.

Minor comments

• Many sentences are very long or grammatically incorrect. The document needs some improvement.
• Repeated phrases like “Lower Submember of the Fourth Member of the Shahejie Formation” disrupt readability. Use “Es4x” after first definition.
• Ensure consistent use of stratigraphic terms (Es4x vs Es 4x vs Es4).

• Figure numbers are sometimes mismatched with references (e.g., Fig. 4 is cited for nearshore bars but seems to show something else).
• Captions such as those for Figs. 6, 8, 12 are currently descriptive but not interpretive. Add explanation of key features.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the quality of the english is fine. However, slight improvement is needed to enhance the fluency. Longer sentences should be split into small sentences to improve readability and sustain clarity.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. The comments helped us improve clarity, consistency, and scientific rigor. Our point-by-point responses are provided below.

1. Precession-cycle interpretation

Reviewer Comment:
The manuscript repeatedly claims that three depositional cycles (~3.2 Myr) reflect 21-kyr precession cycles, but only three cycles are described. Lamina counts are not tied to thickness or depth, and no thickness-to-time conversion is provided. Recommendation: remove precession-cycle interpretation or reinterpret cycles as fourth-order sequences tied to eccentricity/monsoon variability.

Response:
We agree that the previous wording could be misleading. The manuscript has been revised to clarify that the three depositional cycles correspond to fourth-order lake-level sequences (~0.8–1.1 Myr) rather than direct 21-kyr precession cycles. Lamina counts are now discussed in the context of small-scale climate overprints, with clear mention that these reflect subordinate precession-related variations, and the text now includes thickness-to-time scaling based on sedimentation rates (see Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 5.1).

2. Overstatement of climate relative to tectonic controls

Reviewer Comment:
Several conclusions overstate the role of climate. Tectonics clearly control accommodation, sediment pathways, and fan delta progradation.

Response:
We partially revised the text to present a more measured interpretation.

• Climate is described as a modulating factor rather than completely overriding tectonics.
• Statements such as “climate temporarily overshadows tectonics” were clarified to indicate that climate can locally influence sediment distribution within tectonically constrained settings, rather than surpassing tectonic control entirely (Sections 5.3, 5.4).

3. Provenance interpretations

Reviewer Comment:
Three source areas are proposed, but no quantitative provenance data are shown. QFL percentages are too coarse.

Response:
We added:

• QFL ternary diagrams for representative facies
• Representative thin-section photomicrographs
• Summary tables of compositional data by facies and structural domain

This now provides quantitative support for provenance interpretations (see Section 4.5, Figures 13–14).

4. Sequence stratigraphic framework

Reviewer Comment:
SB1–SB3 criteria unclear, parasequence correlations missing, fan delta interpretation inconsistent, MFS not labeled.

Response:
The sequence stratigraphy section has been revised to include:

• Clear criteria for sequence boundary identification
• Labeling of maximum flooding surfaces (MFS), flooding surfaces (FS), and sequence boundaries (SB) in well-log figures
• Updated conceptual diagram summarizing sequences and systems tracts (Sections 4.3–4.3.2, Figures 6, 9, 10)

5. Diagenetic controls

Reviewer Comment:
Diagenesis section needs clearer structure, quantification, thin-section images, poroperm crossplots, and fracture aperture clarification.

Response:
We have revised this section:

• Added thin-section and SEM images supporting cementation and chlorite rims (Figures 15–16)
• Included porosity–depth and porosity–permeability crossplots
• Clarified that “fracture corridors 10–50 mm” refer to aperture, not width
• Cement percentages and secondary porosity estimates are now tabulated (Section 4.6)

6. Paleoclimate interpretation

Reviewer Comment:
Sr/Ba, δ¹⁸O, δ¹³C thresholds need justification. Multiproxy integration unclear. Pollen and clay mineral changes not shown. Adhesion ripples need images.

Response:
We added:

• Justification for δ¹⁸O and δ¹³C thresholds based on previous studies
• An integrated multiproxy panel aligned with depth: Sr/Ba, δ¹⁸O, δ¹³C, clay minerals, color changes, and evaporite thickness (Figure 12)
• Pollen and clay mineral data presented in supplementary figures
• Images of wind-driven adhesion ripples included (Figure 5F)

7. Minor language and readability issues

Reviewer Comment:
Long sentences, repetitive terminology, inconsistent stratigraphic terms, mismatched figure numbers, non-interpretive captions.

Response:
We revised the manuscript to:

• Split long sentences for readability
• Use “Es4x” consistently after first definition
• Correct figure numbers and captions to be interpretive and consistent
• Improve overall English fluency

8. Quality of English language

Reviewer Comment:
Slight improvements needed; longer sentences should be split.

Response:
English has been carefully revised, long sentences were split, and grammatical issues corrected throughout the manuscript.

Final Statement

We thank the reviewer for these constructive suggestions. All major points were addressed, clarifications and quantitative support were added, and minor language issues were improved. Some conceptual points (e.g., precession-cycle emphasis, relative tectonic vs. climate dominance) were revised to reflect a more accurate interpretation consistent with the data.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, Editor-in-Chief,

The manuscript “Orbital Scale Climate Forcing Counteracts the effect of Syn-Rift Tectonics on Reservoir Heterogeneity in the Fourth Member of the Eocene Shahejie Formation, Bonan Depression, Bohai Bay Basin” uses a wide range of subsurface data to evaluate the formation of reservoir sandstones in the Bohai Bay Basin. Among other things, the study introduced a new 2D seismic section that interprets basin sequence stratigraphy and is then calibrated to orbital forcing. Generally, there are no major drawbacks, but the MS needs some additional changes. Despite the abundance of data and rather strong subsurface correlations, the study requires further fine-tuning. Main issues, others are within the PDF itself:

1. An annoying issue is that the reader needs to come back on age every time, so please use consistent age determinations throughout the manuscript.
2. Please recheck the Figures and suggestions in the PDF. The text is almost invisible in some figures. ON welllogs show correlations, please?
3. There are several issues that need explanation, such as the presence of overpressures.
4. Citations are mainly Chinese, which is fine, but they need more international references. Please find a reference for Orbital forcing and use it throughout the manuscript

Suggested references:

Kiehl, J. T., Shields, C. A., Snyder, M. A., Zachos, J. C., & Rothstein, M. (2018). Greenhouse-and orbital-forced climate extremes during the early Eocene. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2130), 20170085.

Sloan, L. C., & Morrill, C. (1998). Orbital forcing and Eocene continental temperatures. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 144(1-2), 21-35.

Zeebe, R. E., Westerhold, T., Littler, K., & Zachos, J. C. (2017). Orbital forcing of the Paleocene and Eocene carbon cycle. Paleoceanography, 32(5), 440-465.

E.g., for saline lacustrine evaporates, see, Burazer et al. 2025

Burazer, N., Šajnović, A., Spahić, D., Tančić, P., Grba, N., & Jovančićević, B. (2025). Unveiling the paleosalinity constraints on southern peri-Pannonian lower Miocene lacustrine systems in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina: Lopare (Dinaride Lake System) versus Toplica basin (Serbian Lake System). Chemical Geology, 671, 122475.

Burazer, N., Šajnović, A., Kašanin-Grubin, M., Gajica, G., Orlić, J., Radisavljević, M., & Jovančićević, B. (2021). Early–Middle Miocene paleoenvironmental and paleoclimate changes in the Toplica Basin (Serbia) inferred from plant biomarkers, biochemical and elemental geochemical proxies. Geologica Carpathica, 72(5), 406-424.

There are a number of papers dealing with saline lacustrine basin

Decision: moderate revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback and helpful suggestions. All comments were carefully considered, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Our detailed responses are provided below.

1. Consistent age determinations

Reviewer Comment:
The reader needs to come back on age every time; please use consistent age determinations throughout the manuscript.

Response:
The manuscript has been revised to ensure consistent age reporting throughout all sections, figures, and tables. All ages now follow the Eocene chronology consistently, avoiding repeated clarification.

2. Figures and well-log correlations

Reviewer Comment:
Please recheck the Figures and suggestions in the PDF. The text is almost invisible in some figures. Show correlations on well logs.

Response:
All figures were carefully revised:

• Figure text has been enhanced for visibility and readability
• Well-log correlations are now clearly marked in the relevant figures
• Figure captions were updated to ensure clarity and consistency with the text

3. Overpressure explanation

Reviewer Comment:
Several issues need explanation, such as the presence of overpressures.

Response:
The manuscript now includes a clear explanation of overpressures:

• Causes linked to rapid sedimentation, compaction, and burial diagenesis
• Their impact on reservoir quality is discussed in Section 4.6.1 (Compaction) and Section 5.5 (Reservoir Implications)

4. International references and orbital forcing

Reviewer Comment:
Citations are mainly Chinese; add more international references for orbital forcing and other concepts.

Response:
We have added the suggested international references and integrated them throughout the manuscript, particularly in discussions of:

• Orbital-scale climate forcing
• Paleoclimate interpretations
• Saline lacustrine evaporites

Added references include:

• Kiehl et al., 2018
• Sloan & Morrill, 1998
• Zeebe et al., 2017
• Burazer et al., 2021; 2025

This ensures broader context and alignment with the international literature.

5. Saline lacustrine basins

Reviewer Comment:
Include references for saline lacustrine evaporates.

Response:
Relevant references (Burazer et al., 2021; 2025) have been incorporated and discussed in the context of saline lacustrine evaporites to support interpretations in Sections 4.1.5, 4.2, and 4.4.

Final Statement

All reviewer comments have been carefully addressed, including:

• Enhanced figure readability and well-log correlations
• Consistent age reporting
• Explanation of overpressures
• Integration of suggested international references
• Updated discussion on saline lacustrine basins

We thank the reviewer again for the valuable suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx