Stratigraphic and Structural Control on Hydrothermal Dolomitization in the Middle Permian Carbonates, Southwestern Sichuan Basin (China)
, Yingchu Shen 1,2, Jianqiang Liu 1,2 and Yuanchong Wang 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest some corrections.
line 22 reword the fogged, e.g. inclusion-rich
L 94, Fig. 1. please, insert an inset map of China and mark the studied location
L 114 increasing sea level - reword
Fig.2A, label as limestone; C: This is not a typical zebra fabric - it is more likely a dolomite vein network.
L 217 under cathodoluminescence light - correct it
Fig.4D The bioclast is not visible.
L 223-224, L227 residual particles ghost, residual particles fabric - reword
l 226 recrystallized: what are the observed features of recrystallization? Please, clarify.
L 239 Rd2 recrystallized to Rd3: Please, describe the features of the recrystallization.
L 259 stronger...weaker CL, do you mean the darker and lighter growth bands?
261 hydrofracturing fractures - reword
Fig. 7C Does cement dolomite exhibit mottled luminescence? This is unusual. You should describe and interpret this feature.
L 289 - 302, This is interpretation. Put it into the discussion.
Fig. 10. This sketch is unnecessary, since the components are shown in photomicrographs and SEM images.
L 459: their similarity in CL characteristics: Please, clarify and explain - how can a replacive phase and a cement phase exhibit similar CL characteristics?
L 480 600-900 m: This is the estimated interval for limestone. Otherwise, the referred paper is a case study on chalk.
L 485 normal burial ... : Do you mean the estimated temperature?
Author Response
The point-by-point response is in the Word file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find attached the annotated version of the manuscript with comments and suggestions. Below are few major concerns that I hope will be addressed by the authors.
There is something unclear to me in this research, 3 types of ‘replacement’ dolomite are described, one of which is considered as ‘penecontemporaneous’, i.e. shallow rather than burial dolomite; and this shallow and early origin, according to the authors, is proven by the dolomite chemical composition. Then the authors state that the dolomite “resulted from penecontemporaneous dolomitization overprinted by hydrothermal dolomitization”… now, how is it possible that dolomite is ‘overprinted’ by hydrothermal dolomitization and still can be identified as ‘penecontemporaneous’? And how you identify ‘penecontemporaneous’ dolomite from its geochemical and isotopic composition if it has been overprinted by hydrothermal activity? Primary vs diagenetic dolomite is a delicate issue that as been broadly discussed in literature and needs special attention. The extent to which dolomite chemical composition can be changed by hydrothermal fluids is another open question in literature. See for instance discussions in:
Preto et al. 2014, Sedimentology doi: 10.1111/sed.12157
Franchi et al., 2016, Sedimentary Geology http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2016.07.008
Gasparrini et al., 2006, Marine and Petroleum Geology, doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2006.05.003
Franchi 2018, Precambrian Research 310 (2018) 93–113.
In general it would be interesting to know how the authors have discriminated between ‘replacement’ dolomite and ‘cement’ dolomite! This is not clear from the text neither from the photomicrographs. It is also important to specify how the authors have calculated the percentages of each dolomite type, is this a volume estimate or what?
The “Geological Setting” chapter seems to mix up literature with author’s own results; please check carefully and remove from this chapter all informations coming from your study. For instance the lithofacies description and the burial history. Otherwise add references!
Figure 10 is deceiving as it shows all the textures and fabrics together and this is clearly not the case. The authors divided a proximal and a distal zone and describe lithofacies (Fig. 20 for instance). Now these different lithofacies and textures cannot be summarized by a single sketch which does not reflect the truth. Please remove this figure!
Discussions are poorly written, English is often colloquial and the sentences are often difficult to follow. I suggest a thorough review from a native English speaker before the next submission.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
a point-by-point is in the word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Nice work - I have only few editorial remarks as shown in the annotated file.
Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
A point-by-point response is in the word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
