Comprehensive Provenance Analysis and Its Applications to Eocene Clastic Rocks in the Huimin Depression, Bohai Bay Basin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have gone through the entire manuscript and provided suggested grammatical changes, and also called attention to statements that need clarification. I encountered no errors of fact, and I think the authors did a good job explaining relationships discovered by their investigations that require considerable effort. The figures are particularly nicely done.
References and citations are in pretty good shape, however, there is a minor issue with manuscript citations not in the references. Introduction lines 39-41 cite the following references that are not in the References: Crook, 1974; Dickinson et al., 1979; and Dickinson, 1985. There is also a citation of Wang, 2007 line 87 of the second part of the manuscript (actually page 16).
There is also some lack of uniformity in the actual references, for example lines 199, 206, and 214 , where the word Doctor appears, presumably indicating a dissertation. Also, References, line 160 – EARTH SCI:J CHINA U GEOSIC, and line 165 – XI’AN UNIV:NAT SCI ED are the only citations italized.
My system is red is out, green is in, blue has some question to consider about what is said.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and for the comment concerning our manuscript entitled “Comprehensive Provenance Analyses and Its Applications of Eocene Clastic Rocks in the Huimin Depression, Bohai Bay Basin, China” (ID: minerals-564074). This comment is all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made correction which we hope meet with approval. I have used “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word.The main correction in the paper and the responds to your comments are please see the attachment.
Zehua Zhang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work by Zhang and Wang presents a very good set of different data and use them to better establish sediment provenance of Eocene units of the Huimin Depression (eastern China). The combination of these datasets is a good exercise that can be potentially interesting for an international audience.
It seems that the authors consider that they created a new method. But as far as I see it, their data combination is a good approach, but I would not call it a new method. Actually, petrography and heavy mineral assemblages are providing the most robust information on provenance, and this is something that was already published in hundreds of scientific papers. The other two methods (geophysics and units thickness) just give accessory information. In my opinion the authors must say that they are performing a comprehensive assessment of provenance. This is good enough and, providing proper data quality and presentation, deserves publication in an international journal.
Unfortunately, there are many problems with the manuscript. To start, with the construction of phrases. I signed a lot of things and made suggestions until page 2. The problems persist in the rest of the manuscript.
Although a substantial part of the writing issues is more of elegance than of formal content, there are, however, many cases poor application of scientific terms. The best example is the word “provenance”. It appears 132 times, which could be OK, since it is a work on provenance. But combined with other words, we find awkward terms or expressions (e.g., “direction of provenance”, “provenance method”, “Linfangia high (…) could be a sediment provenance”, “comprehensive provenance analysis method is a provenance analysis method”, etc.). Other example are the so-called sedimentary methods or sand dispersion system, which apparently are applied to something that is no more than the thickness of the sedimentary succession. Also structural geology is used as tectonics or tectonic context.
In general, it is a very confusing text. The methods and the geological setting are not presented in a clear way. The results are far too long (see comment throughout the edited manuscript). The discussion and conclusions are somewhat hastily (the best example is signed on page 16, lines 90-93; there are others) and repetitive. Also problematic is the occurrence of titles that are repeated and does not reflect the contents of the corresponding section.
Having all this in mind, it is my understanding that the manuscript needs a lot of work before being in shape for publication in an international scientific journal. In reformulating the article, the authors must reduce it substantially (to about 50%; to 1/3 in the part of the description of the results), apply carefully scientific terms, and use a clear language. Some figures (e.g., 2, 5, 6, and 7) should also be improved. Given the amount of work required and thinking in the best interests of the authors, I recommend that they reformulate the manuscript and present it again as a new submission.
I am sorry if this review does not meet authors’ expectations. I hope that the authors will find the courage to the required reformulations and this review will help them to present this research as a sound contribution for provenance investigation.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and for the comment concerning our manuscript entitled “Comprehensive Provenance Analyses and Its Applications of Eocene Clastic Rocks in the Huimin Depression, Bohai Bay Basin, China” (ID: minerals-564074). This comment is all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made correction which we hope meet with approval. Please see the attachment. I have used “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word. The main correction in the paper and the responds to your comments are as flowing:
Point 1: It seems that the authors consider that they created a new method. But as far as I see it, their data combination is a good approach, but I would not call it a new method. Petrography and heavy mineral assemblages are providing the most robust information on provenance, and this is something that was already published in hundreds of scientific papers. The other two methods (geophysics and units’ thickness) just give accessory information. In my opinion the authors must say that they are performing a comprehensive assessment of provenance. This is good enough and, providing proper data quality and presentation, deserves publication in an international journal.
Response 1: We agree that data combination is a good approach, heavy mineral assemblages are providing the most robust information and the other two methods (geophysics and units thickness) just give accessory information. Previously, Scholars almost have not combined macroscopic source analysis with microscopic source analysis to study provenance. Our study provides a new way of thinking and establishes the provenance system of the study area.
Point 2: To start, with the construction of phrases. I signed a lot of things and made suggestions until page 2. The problems persist in the rest of the manuscript.
Response 2: We adopted all your suggestions and corrected the use of the terms. For instance, we remove “locations, properties”, replace the word provenance with the word source, delete “and establishes the corresponding relationship between them”, replace the “sand dispersion system” with the “sand distributed system” and rewrite second paragraph of part one. In the rest of the article, we also changed the inappropriate language.
Point 3: Geological setting must be completely re-structured. It is necessary to introduce some order. For example: 1) main geologic/geomorphologic units, 2) stratigraphy, 3) post-depositional evolution. A different structure can be adopted, providing being coherent.
Response 3: As requested, we introduced the main geologic units, stratigraphy and post-depositional.
Point 4: Although a substantial part of the writing issues is more of elegance than of formal content, there are, however, many cases poor application of scientific terms. The best example is the word “provenance”. It appears 132 times, which could be OK, since it is a work on provenance. But combined with other words, we find awkward terms or expressions (e.g., “direction of provenance”, “provenance method”, “Linfangia high (…) could be a sediment provenance”, “comprehensive provenance analysis method is a provenance analysis method”, etc.).
Response 4: Another reviewer helped us correct our grammatical errors. With the help of another reviewer, we corrected the grammatical errors and the use of terms. As has been shown in the Fig.2, the Linfanjia high is a tectonic unit of sub-uplift.
Point 5: Other example are the so-called sedimentary methods or sand dispersion system, which apparently are applied to something that is no more than the thickness of the sedimentary succession. Also problematic is the occurrence of titles that are repeated and does not reflect the contents of the corresponding section.
Response 5: Maybe we didn't make it clear. Appropriate corrections have been made. The approximate provenance of the study area has been determined, and the drawing of sand dispersion system includes the isopach diagram of sandstone. The isopach diagram of sandstone can reflect the thickness of sandstone and judge the source direction.
Point 6: In general, it is a very confusing text. The methods and the geological setting are not presented in a clear way. The results are far too long (see comment throughout the edited manuscript). The discussion and conclusions are somewhat hastily (the best example is signed on page 16, lines 90-93; there are others) and repetitive. In reformulating the article, the authors must reduce it substantially (to about 50%; to 1/3 in the part of the description of the results), apply carefully scientific terms, and use a clear language. Some figures (e.g., 2, 5, 6, and 7) should also be improved.
Response 6: We reorganized the confusing text. For instances, the methods and geological setting are presented in a clear way as far as possible, we removed unnecessary contents in results section and reduced the heavy minerals section by about a third and we have reformulated the section about discussion and conclusions. Figures (e.g., 5, 6, 7) have be improved. The Fig.1 is a reference, and the area of dotted line in Picture 1 is a thumbnail view of the picture 2. Please see the attachment.
Point 7: No gneiss is shown in the log and the presence of basalt it is not a strong evidence of provenance from an area with magmatic rocks. Basalt only shows that lava flows arrived to the basin, but clastic sedimentary rocks may have a completely different source area
Response 7: We've made corrections. The granitic gneiss is shown in the log (Fig.10). Based on the results, it can be inferred that the provenance from an area with magmatic rocks. The presence of basalt and granitic gneiss help us determine the age of the parent rock. This is not strong evidence; it is only a reasonable inference.
Point 8: A question about fig.6. No location here. Maybe Fig 7. Anyway, the graphics are not that clear. Apparently, the distance between wells in the graphic does not reflect actual distance in the field. An indication of orientation (where is N, S, E or W) would also help to understand trends.
Knowing that many wells are available, I wonder if it is possible to plot these two indices as trending surfaces based on contour maps. At least for Es2 it should work.
Response 8: We agree that isoline mapping is a good way to reflect changes. We also tried to make isoline maps. However, because we only have data from 13 wells, the accuracy of isoline maps is low. Thus, finally, I didn’t make the contour map. The original diagram has been made. (Fig.1) Please see the attachment. And the limitation of exponential change can be compensated by identifying the progradation reflection structure and making isopach maps of sandstone.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The new version of the manuscript and the reply to my previous suggestions clearly show that the authors did a valid effort to improve the quality of the presentation.
I still found some issues that must be addressed. The main things are listed below:
The section on the heavy mineral assemblages comprise two sub-sections with the same title. Again, they should be shortened and the scientific terms should be used rigorously. What is called the “sand distributed system” is no more than sandstone thickness. I made some suggestions when this expression was applied in the text. Again, I found repeated information. I signed one in the part of petrography, but there are others in the manuscript that should be removed. A renewed alert for the granitic gneiss issue, now also focused in the poor quality of Figure 10. I did some edits at the beginning and in parts where I was already expecting problems.
This is a very quick assessment that I hope will help to improve the quality of the research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and for the comment concerning our manuscript entitled “Comprehensive Provenance Analyses and Its Applications of Eocene Clastic Rocks in the Huimin Depression, Bohai Bay Basin, China” (ID: minerals-564074). This comment is all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made correction which we hope meet with approval. I have used “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I recognize that the authors reformulated the manuscript following my suggestions. It is a peaty that I was not able to understand some points in the previous versions of this article (e.g., what they called before “sand dispersion system” and “sand distributed system”, which I see now it is the geometric distribution of the sandstone bodies). Text is clearer and more synthetic, making the manuscript easier to read.
Although I consider that I shouldn't act much further in this reviewing process, I left some final editing suggestions in the annotated manuscript. Although the redaction does not have to be as I propose, authors must reconsider the signed phrases.
I wish the authors the greatest success in future work on provenance studies, namely when applied to the recognition of petroleum systems and other economically relevant issues.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and for the comment concerning our manuscript entitled “Comprehensive Provenance Analyses and Its Applications of Eocene Clastic Rocks in the Huimin Depression, Bohai Bay Basin, China” (ID: minerals-564074). This comment is all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made correction which we hope meet with approval. I have used “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word. Please see the attachment. The main correction in the paper and the responds to your comments are as flowing:
Point 1: It is a peaty that I was not able to understand some points in the previous versions of this article (e.g., what they called before “sand dispersion system” and “sand distributed system”, which I see now it is the geometric distribution of the sandstone bodies).
Response 1: Sorry, this is our mistake. We didn't give a professional and clear description. And thank you for suggestions. In order to make the article clearer, we accepted your all suggestions. The “sand dispersion system” and “sand distributed system” in the previous version of article have been replaced with the “distribution of sandstone bodies”. The geometric distribution of the sandstone bodies and percentage distribution of sandstone are collectively referred to as “sand dispersion system” or “sand distributed system” by some Chinese scholars. We have analyzed the geometric distribution of the sandstone bodies.
Point 2: Although I consider that I shouldn't act much further in this reviewing process, I left some final editing suggestions in the annotated manuscript. Although the redaction does not have to be as I propose, authors must reconsider the signed phrases.
Response 2: We adopted all your suggestions and corrected the mistake. 1) Page 1, line 15: The sentence “This paper presents comprehensive analytical data for the detrital composition, heavy minerals, seismic reflection characteristics, and the sand distribution of the Shahejie Formation (Es2) to the Dongying Formation (Ed) productive interval.” has been replaced with the “A comprehensive assessment of sediment provenance based on sandstone petrography, heavy mineral assemblages, seismic reflection data, and distribution of sandstone bodies of the Shahejie Formation (Es2) to the Dongying Formation (Ed) productive interval”.2) Page 13, line 139-143: This description “The heavy mineral assemblage of Area F has that the characteristics of mixture source. Well M1 in Area D, which is close to that of the sediment source area. So, the sediment source of Area D is the Linfanjia high to the east of the depression, and the Linfanjia high controls the sedimentation of the Yangxin Subsag.” has been replace with the “The heavy mineral assemblage of Area F point to mixed source. In well M1, from Area D, they indicate a provenance from the Linfanjia high, to the east of the depression. There data suggest that the Linfanjia high controls the sedimentation in the Yangxin Subsag, but the influence of the Wudi high remains unclear.”.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
