Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The language of the paper is relatively good, the writing content is detailed, and the structure is reasonable. However, there are some problems as follows,

The title of the paper is repeated.

Jurassic carbonates deposited in shallow marine carbonate platform are distinctive avenue for studying the depositional and diagenetic changes in carbonate sedimentary rocks?

This is not a scientific question, it needs to be clear what scientific question is being solved.

Figure 7. the Ps-15 (MF7) should be the ooid shoal.

Figure 9.For C section, for buried cementation, oxygen isotopes should be negative. It may be the result of evaporation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented manuscript examines the lithological features of two sections of Middle Jurassic (?) carbonate rocks of the Trans-Indus Range in the northwestern Himalayas. Based on the study of sedimentological (macro-, field data) and microscopic data, the authors identified several microfacies of carbonate rocks and proposed sedimentation models. The diagenetic evolution of carbonate rocks has been reconstructed (based on macro- and microscopic data, supplemented by the results of isotope analysis of carbon and oxygen). The formation of sediments in the sections studied by the authors was somewhat different. The Chichali section is characterized by both supratidal zone sediments and shallow-marine outer ramp sediments. The Paniala section is dominated by shallower sediments. Carbonate rocks of both sections underwent diagenetic changes, under the influence of both marine and meteoric factors, as well as subsidence and uplift factors. The diagenetic history of the sediments is confirmed by isotope (carbon and oxygen) analysis. As a result of the research, the authors conclude that the conditions of sediment accumulation and the history of their diagenetic transformation are generally typical for shallow marine carbonates. The facts collected by the authors are quite well comparable with the features of accumulation and post-sedimentary changes in Jurassic shallow-water shelf carbonate rocks in other regions.

Main remarks (many small comments and questions are shown by me in the immediate margins of the manuscript):

The title of the manuscript requires correction (the same thing is repeated twice).

The abstract is written clearly and in detail, but there is still a feeling of some understatement.

The Introduction is written quite well. The only thing that could be added to it is information about the results of previously conducted studies of the carbonate rocks considered by the authors.

The most important omission of the authors is the absence of stratigraphic columns of the studied sections. Such columns would make it possible to provide a visual description of the structure of the sections, show the various divisions of the sections often mentioned in the text, and indicate the spatial distribution of various lithotypes and microfacies. As a result, we/readers would get a clear general idea of ​​the sections studied by the authors. But, alas, there is nothing like that.

The description of microfacies and the given illustrations of macro- and microcharacteristics of rocks do not cause any special comments. The same should be said about the section of the manuscript concerning the diagenetic history of carbonate rocks.

Probably, the Conclusion could be expanded by briefly comparing the data obtained by the authors with data on other regions of the distribution of Middle Jurassic deposits.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Two sets of outcrop samples of Jurassic carbonates from Trans-Indus Ranges in the Himalaya Mts. were examined in this study. Geological fieldwork proceeded microfacial analysis and isotope analysis. The Authors have done a lot of work and used a number of research methods. The work on sedimentological scope is of a basic nature and is limited to regional exploration, which has no impact on the universal development of knowledge.

 

Remarks/questions:

1.     The samples represent different lithofacies, but is their stratigraphic relationship or position in the lithological profile known?

2.     Should it be understood that the Authors consider meteoric water to be a source of Mg needed in the dolomitization process?

3.     What is the history of dolomitization and stylolization in Paniala section?

 

Minor comments:

l. 92. - Citation “(Khan et l., 2013)” should be uniformed with the other.

Figures - Descriptions in yellow on photos are not legible

Fig. 6. - The structure shown in Fig. 6E is not an ooid, due to the internal structure. What does it mean “non-skeletal fragment ooid”?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf