HFSE-REE Transfer Mechanisms During Metasomatism of a Late Miocene Peraluminous Granite Intruding a Carbonate Host (Campiglia Marittima, Tuscany)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Brief Summary
The authors have performed a detailed mineralogical and geochemical study of an intensively metasomatized granitic body in order to provide constraints into the nature, style, and origin of the metasomatic agents. They use a novel approach by integrating the in-situ data and demonstrate the importance of such observations for understanding the post-crystallization history of granites. The broader impact that this study shows is the important information that single-crystal studies can unravel on the metasomatic history of plutonic rocks.
Broad Comments
Although the manuscript is overall well organized and presented, I have some comments that I believe are important to reconsider before acceptance for publication. My main concerns are: (i) English grammar; I could spot and point out several mistakes, but I am sure that not all of them. The authors should run Grammarly or a similar software before submission next time. (ii) The results are well organized but are way too extensive, in part because the authors have sometimes included discussions and/or interpretations within the results section. I recommend shortening this section for simplicity when possible. Another major issue of the results section is the lack of photomicrographs depicting all the mentioned textural associations. This needs to be added as it is a paramount pillar of the interpretations. (iii) The data presented in the supplementary information needs revision as several datapoints seem to be flawed. I would like to know what the authors have to say about the data quality control.
Specific Comments
The first sentence of the abstract is too vague. There are several examples attempting to understand the mobility of REE and HFSE using an in-situ approach, particularly for mantle metasomatism. Metasomatism is a way to broad concept and I would recommend the authors to rephrase this sentence to explicitly mention the context that this study addresses. Replace “did form” with formed. Replace “specifically abundant in” with particularly along
The introduction needs a paragraph stating why understanding metasomatism of granitic bodies is important to the Petrology/Mineralogy/Geochemistry communities. This would result in a more interesting introduction to catch the reader’s attention.
41-47. This first paragraph is unintelligible as is. Please rephrase whole paragraph.
Consolidation is not the word for this sentence. Use Crystallization. Changing its original chemistry and mineralogy.42-43. Please rephrase this second sentence. It doesn’t make sense as is.
43-44. It is not clear why it is important? What is the challenge to be addressed?
48- Comparing the whole rock composition of metasomatized to unmetasomatized rocks? Clarify.
“At a very local scale” is too vague. Quantify.50-55. This is indeed the very core of the study and it is interesting. It needs to be highlighted either earlier in the introduction or at last. The authors are demonstrating that the study of microscale processes recorded in the chemistry of zoned minerals can provide important insights into the composition of metasomatizing fluids.
55- EMP and LA-ICP-MS acronyms should not be placed here.
56- “has to” is not the way to say it.
Figure citation and location needed.78-81. Rephrase as: In this study, we combine (i), (ii), and (iii) to reconstruct the…
Needs citation. ASI not needed here. Also, it is mentioned later in the manuscript. Define Mg# at first appearance.109-147. Here I find an important issue in the writing style. The authors are telling a metasomatic history of the granite body, but I see no citations nor references to figures or tables. All this story needs a back-up.
I agree with the way the authors presented the methods as is.
The results are well organized as they are. However, there is a lot of textural information here that also needs to be backed-up with figures. I recommend making a new figure depicting all textural associations described in the results section.
Revise citation style.
172-178. The authors mention two generations of alkali feldspar but only describe 1. I understand that the second one is the metasomatic described below. However, as it is written, the reader is left with the idea that there is a generation lacking description.
180-181. Figure 1??
Define Fe#204-214. This is a discussion paragraph and should not be here.
215-220. All the sentences here need a citation.
222-224. This texture needs to be seen in a figure.
Same here229-232. This is also a discussion/conclusion. In the results sections just describe the results!
234-236. Here you are also telling a story which is an interpretation. Therefore, it is not an objective result. This is for the discussion section. Instead, the associations should be just described and backed-up with microphotographs.
All the 4.2.2. section needs to be rewritten to avoid interpretations in the results section.245-250. This is well written as the entire section should be. Descriptive.
This texture also needs a photomicrograph Remove “accurate” Can you show all these textures? The world is indeed a wild place but the word you are looking for is worldwide.272-273. All the correlations should be quantified by for example an R2value.
Rutile usually occurs as anhedral crystals. Here I realized that BSE is not defined as backscattered electron elsewhere in the text. It should at first appearance. Instead of 0-500 use <500. For all cases hereafter. Contents Is this here Based on petrographic.. Not garnets, garnet. Variations Excessive comma use. Rephrase. triggers Contributed The best option is only one, not several. Just remove this first sentence. geo/minero-chemical? Just say mineralogical and geochemical
I would recommend not referring to ppm but to μg.g-1. Ppm is more like lab-slang.
Tables
Table 2 (continued) Correct typo in word total.
Table 2. For both major and trace elements please homogenize the number of significant figures in all values consistently with the analytical errors.
Figures
Figure 1. The inset in the figure is too small and the studied area (B) is not easily depicted. Please enlarge.
Figure 2. The shapes of the insets D and C in figure 2A and 2B do not match that of figures 2C and 2D.
Figure 4. Enlarge symbols and all labels and axis. Can’t be seen easily as is.
Figure 5. Specify which chondrite composition you used and cite accordingly.
Figure 6. Enlarge axis labels
Figure 12. Remove “ALLANITE epidote”.
Figure 14. Please try to enlarge all labels.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Table S1
Please revise writing in the tables. E.g., “totale” instead of total
Why are the rutile totals so high? Up to 105.87? Did you run check standards for this?
There are several garnet data with way too low totals (94-96%?!). How are this datapoints useful? This is an important issue to address.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The core of the manuscript is a very detailed petrographic and geochemical description of the numerous primary, secondary and accessory minerals that are found in a large and very complex from the geological point of view in which a series of metasomatism episodes are identified in the literature.
One have to recognize the huge work needed to perform the big amount of descriptions, analytical work and geochemical correlations included in the manuscript. Moreover, the data come from an area of geological interest and can be useful beyond the local domain. However, authors must do an important effort in order to present their results in a better way and to simplify the paper. Graphics and tables in the present version are not a help; on the contrary, errors on them, contribute to make the manuscript even more difficult.
A complete rewriting of the results section (number 6) and a significant improvement of sections 5 and 6 for a more efficient and clear presentation of results is recommended. Some suggestion to be considered, are:
Textural descriptions should be simplified and shortened; optical polarizing microscopy can help to lighten up the text. Double check the coherency between text and tables and avoid duplicate information (the same in table and text). For example, a party of the information in text and in table 1 is redundant and are inconsistent data between text and table (mainly in section 4.1). Tables of geochemical analysis results are more desirable than long texts with the same information. So that, given the amount of data, the tables should be easy to read. In their present form, Table 1 and Table 2 are not good examples of the above. Please consider the inclusion of more and smaller tables in the corresponding subsections and avoid redundant information. In the description of the group of phyllosilicates (page 4), the quoted figures do not correspond to the text content. The same happens from line 233 to 270. Moreover, Figure 6 is not mentioned in the text. Please re-read carefully the final text and correct some mistakes. For example, Figure 8 caption is incomplete. In line 226: “world wild”. Check also lines 355, 356 and 3577. Line 171: reference format.Finally, although the subject of this manuscript is not completely foreign to Minerals scopes, it would best fit in a journal closer to classic geochemistry and endogenous petrology.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript describes a rather interesting hydrothermal system in Campiglia Marittima. However substantial improvement is required before it is considered again for publication. Whole-rock data are missing, and the factors controlling the evolution of the paragenetic sequences (such as temperature and oxygen fugacity) are not sufficiently discussed.
Furthermore, the citation of published works in the text has to be improved, as well as the style of writing. When these issues are resolved, the manuscript will have the potential to be an important contribution.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate that the authors have carefully addressed all of my major concerns, particularly regarding data presentation and the addition of photomicrographs depicting the claimed petrographical relationships.
Although at this stage I do not feel qualified to detect minor English grammar mistakes that might still be present in the manuscript, I believe that the manuscript was significantly improved. I recommend accepting this manuscript.
Author Response
ANSWER TO REVIEWER 1
I appreciate that the authors have carefully addressed all of my major concerns, particularly regarding data presentation and the addition of photomicrographs depicting the claimed petrographical relationships. Although at this stage I do not feel qualified to detect minor English grammar mistakes that might still be present in the manuscript, I believe that the manuscript was significantly improved. I recommend accepting this manuscript.
We thank you for the constructive comments on the manuscript, which significantly improved the presentation of this study.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has greatly improved over the previous version.
The authors have made considerable effort and have almost completely rewritten the text. It is now clearer and more concise.
The figures, and especially the tables, are in this version more useful for the understanding of the work and the incorporation of some data as supplementary material make reading easier.
An improved organization of Figure 1 is recommended, mainly because the information in Figure 1J is barely visible.
Author Response
ANSWER TO REVIEWER 2
The manuscript has greatly improved over the previous version.
The authors have made considerable effort and have almost completely rewritten the text. It is now clearer and more concise.
The figures, and especially the tables, are in this version more useful for the understanding of the work and the incorporation of some data as supplementary material make reading easier.
An improved organization of Figure 1 is recommended, mainly because the information in Figure 1J is barely visible.
At this stage, we improved the organization of Fig.1 as you suggested.
We thank you for the constructive comments on the manuscript, which significantly improved the presentation of this study.
Reviewer 3 Report
The present version of the manuscript shows a clear improvement. The corrections in English language and writing style made the text much clearer, and the citations in the text have been improved. Electron back-scattered images of secondary REE-minerals are clearly presented which is helpful to the reader. Although, it is not yet evidently clear about the estimates on the acidity and temperature of the hydrothermal fluids, there is text in the Discussion that addresses that issue to a point. I understand that the present work is complementary to a companion paper however it deals with gain and loss of elements in a hydrothermal system. As it is stated by the authors in the Introduction, whole-rock data alone may not present the full picture, there must be a combination of whole-rock and mineral data. In this version there are only mineral data and whole-rock are STILL missing. Even if there are in a companion paper, they should be compared to the findings of this work (with proper citation of course). For example the authors mention the granite-type REE patterns of titanite, but there are no whole-rock REE patterns from the granites in this work. In the Geological Background section the entire sub-section of Potassic metasomatism has only one citation at the end of it (and it is the authors' companion paper). Not sure if the geological background is the appropriate place for that or the Results (contains same information). Please re-consider, or provide citations. I attach detailed comments on a separate file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
