Characterization of Microbialites Using ERT and GPR: Insights from Neoproterozoic and Mesozoic Carbonate Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been much improved by the authors' revision.  

Author Response

The manuscript has been much improved by the authors' revision.  

Thank you very much for your review. The manuscript was revised and improved following your inputs.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a clear and well-prepared study on the combined application of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) for the characterization of microbialites in two different carbonate systems. The topic is relevant for the journal, and the approach, complemented by semi-automatic detection techniques, is well suited to current research trends in near-surface geophysics and carbonate sedimentology.

Below, I provide suggestions intended to strengthen the work without affecting its overall structure.

Comment 1 – Abstract clarity and emphasis on novelty

The Abstract is generally well written and provides a good overview of the study. However, it would benefit from a clearer emphasis on what is new in your work and what specific advances it brings to the field. At the moment, the Abstract describes the methodology and results, but the innovative aspects and the potential broader impact of your approach remain somewhat implicit.

I suggest briefly highlighting:

• the main novelty of combining ERT, GPR and semi-automatic detection techniques for microbialite characterization;
• the methodological contribution, such as improved objectivity, reproducibility, and transferability;
• the key outcomes, particularly how your approach clarifies microbialite morphology or distribution;
• the potential applications in other geological or geophysical contexts.

A short sentence explicitly stating “what this study adds compared to previous works” would significantly strengthen the Abstract and immediately communicate the value of your contribution to readers.

 

Comment 2 – Introduction section

The Introduction is well written and provides useful geological and conceptual background. However, it is currently quite long and includes extensive material that goes beyond the typical scope of an Introduction in a scientific article. In its present form, this section resembles a combined overview of carbonate geology, microbialites, reservoir analogues, and previous applications of near-surface geophysics.

For clarity and structure, I recommend condensing the Introduction to focus more succinctly on:

• the scientific motivation,
• the knowledge gap,
• the aim of the study, and
• the major findings or contributions of your work.

Much of the broader background (e.g., long descriptions of carbonate systems, microbialite types, reservoir context, and summary of previous geophysical studies) would be better suited as a separate section, such as:

“Previous Works”, “Background and Geological Context”, or “State of the Art”.

This reorganization will make the manuscript more concise and will more clearly highlight the novelty and objectives of your study.

 

 

Comment 3 – Section 5.1 (Discussion)

In Section 5.1, the sentence at lines 550-551, “Each method contributes complementary insights, with ERT excelling in subsurface spatial coverage and GPR offering high-resolution imaging of shallow structures [18,19,41].” is clear but could be further strengthened by providing practical examples of how these methods have been successfully applied in different geological contexts. This would help reinforce the idea that the two techniques are complementary and broadly applicable across diverse geoscientific settings.

For instance, regarding ERT, you may refer to studies that demonstrate its effectiveness in investigating subsurface geometries and karst-related hazards, such as Jabrane et al. (2023) who integrated ERT with seismic refraction to characterize subsiding sinkholes in karst terrains.

Similarly, for GPR, you could mention applications in structural geology and fault characterization, such as the work of Ercoli et al. (2021), which shows how high-resolution GPR imaging can detect and analyse Quaternary faulting.

Incorporating these examples would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the broader potential and versatility of both methods.

Original:
lines 550-551 “Each method contributes complementary insights, with ERT excelling in subsurface spatial coverage and GPR offering high-resolution imaging of shallow structures [18,19,41].”

Proposed Version:

“Each method contributes complementary insights, with ERT excelling in subsurface spatial coverage and GPR offering high-resolution imaging of shallow structures [18,19,41]. The versatility of ERT has been demonstrated in various geological contexts, for example in the investigation of subsiding sinkholes and karst cavities through the integration of resistivity and seismic refraction techniques (Jabrane et al., 2023). Conversely, GPR has proven highly effective in structural and neotectonic studies, such as the detection and characterization of near-surface fault zones and Quaternary deformation features (Ercoli et al., 2021). These examples highlight how the combined use of ERT and GPR can provide a robust multiscale framework for subsurface interpretation across different geoscientific environments.”

Suggested References:

Jabrane, O.; Martínez-Pagán, P.; Martínez-Segura, M.A.; Alcalá, F.J.; El Azzab, D.; Vásconez-Maza, M.D.; Charroud, M. Integration of Electrical Resistivity Tomography and Seismic Refraction Tomography to Investigate Subsiding Sinkholes in Karst Areas. Water 2023, 15, 2192. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15122192

Ercoli, M.; Cirillo, D.; Pauselli, C.; Jol, H.M.; Brozzetti, F. Ground-penetrating radar signature of Quaternary faulting: a study from the Mt. Pollino region, southern Apennines, Italy. Solid Earth 2021, 12, 2573-2596. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-2573-2021

 

 

Comment 4 – Broader applicability of the proposed approach

The Discussion and Conclusion sections clearly describe the relevance of your integrated ERT–GPR workflow for microbialite characterization. However, the manuscript would benefit from a brief expansion on the broader geoscientific applicability of your method. Since the proposed semi-automatic analysis pipeline (blob detection for ERT and peak detection for GPR) is not inherently limited to microbialites, it could be useful to highlight additional contexts where this combined approach may be employed.

For example, similar techniques could be applied to:

• Geological and sedimentological studies, such as imaging of carbonate buildups, travertine bodies, tufas, or diagenetic horizons.
• Structural geology, for detecting sub-circular resistive anomalies associated with fault-related breccias, karst cavities, vein systems, or fracture corridors.
• Geomorphology and Quaternary geology, including mapping of buried channels, paleosols, or sedimentary mounds.
• Engineering geology, such as the identification of voids, boulders, or heterogeneities relevant to foundations and subsurface stability.
• Environmental and hydrogeological investigations, for example, resistive lithological contrasts related to aquifer heterogeneity or percolation paths.

Including one or two of these examples—either in the Discussion or Conclusions—would help underline the transferability and versatility of your workflow beyond microbialite systems, thereby increasing the broader significance of the study.

 

Comment 5 – Figures (general readability)

The overall quality of the figures is good; however, several of them would benefit from improved text readability. In their current form, many labels, captions, and annotations are quite small, and when printed on a standard A4 format, they become difficult to read or almost illegible.

In particular:

• Figures 1 and 2: In the legends, the acronyms of the geological formations are extremely small and become unreadable once printed. Enlarging the legend text.
• Figures 5 to 8: The text size (labels, numbers, annotations) is too small. Increasing font size.

Improving the readability of the figures will significantly strengthen the visual impact and accessibility of the manuscript.

 

I encourage the authors to address all comments provided in this review carefully. The manuscript is scientifically sound, and the suggestions offered, mainly related to figure readability, refinement of the Abstract, clarity of the Introduction, and the enhancement of the Discussion, are intended solely to help improve the quality and accessibility of the work.

 

Taking these points into account will further strengthen the manuscript, enhancing its clarity, impact, and overall presentation.

Author Response

Comment 1 – Abstract clarity and emphasis on novelty

The Abstract is generally well written and provides a good overview of the study. However, it would benefit from a clearer emphasis on what is new in your work and what specific advances it brings to the field. At the moment, the Abstract describes the methodology and results, but the innovative aspects and the potential broader impact of your approach remain somewhat implicit.

I suggest briefly highlighting:

• the main novelty of combining ERT, GPR and semi-automatic detection techniques for microbialite characterization;
• the methodological contribution, such as improved objectivity, reproducibility, and transferability;
• the key outcomes, particularly how your approach clarifies microbialite morphology or distribution;
• the potential applications in other geological or geophysical contexts.

A short sentence explicitly stating “what this study adds compared to previous works” would significantly strengthen the Abstract and immediately communicate the value of your contribution to readers.

Thank you very much for your detailed revision. It helped a lot to improve the general quality of the manuscript.

The abstract was modified to focus on the stated points.

 

Comment 2 – Introduction section

The Introduction is well written and provides useful geological and conceptual background. However, it is currently quite long and includes extensive material that goes beyond the typical scope of an Introduction in a scientific article. In its present form, this section resembles a combined overview of carbonate geology, microbialites, reservoir analogues, and previous applications of near-surface geophysics.

For clarity and structure, I recommend condensing the Introduction to focus more succinctly on:

• the scientific motivation,
• the knowledge gap,
• the aim of the study, and
• the major findings or contributions of your work.

Much of the broader background (e.g., long descriptions of carbonate systems, microbialite types, reservoir context, and summary of previous geophysical studies) would be better suited as a separate section, such as:

“Previous Works”, “Background and Geological Context”, or “State of the Art”.

This reorganization will make the manuscript more concise and will more clearly highlight the novelty and objectives of your study.

The introduction was redone as suggested and a new section “Background and State of the Art” was added. This change allows to clearly state the goals and achievements of the study without sacrificing the explanation of the context and background.

Comment 3 – Section 5.1 (Discussion)

In Section 5.1, the sentence at lines 550-551, “Each method contributes complementary insights, with ERT excelling in subsurface spatial coverage and GPR offering high-resolution imaging of shallow structures [18,19,41].” is clear but could be further strengthened by providing practical examples of how these methods have been successfully applied in different geological contexts. This would help reinforce the idea that the two techniques are complementary and broadly applicable across diverse geoscientific settings.

For instance, regarding ERT, you may refer to studies that demonstrate its effectiveness in investigating subsurface geometries and karst-related hazards, such as Jabrane et al. (2023) who integrated ERT with seismic refraction to characterize subsiding sinkholes in karst terrains.

Similarly, for GPR, you could mention applications in structural geology and fault characterization, such as the work of Ercoli et al. (2021), which shows how high-resolution GPR imaging can detect and analyse Quaternary faulting.

Incorporating these examples would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the broader potential and versatility of both methods.

Original:
lines 550-551 “Each method contributes complementary insights, with ERT excelling in subsurface spatial coverage and GPR offering high-resolution imaging of shallow structures [18,19,41].”

Proposed Version:

“Each method contributes complementary insights, with ERT excelling in subsurface spatial coverage and GPR offering high-resolution imaging of shallow structures [18,19,41]. The versatility of ERT has been demonstrated in various geological contexts, for example in the investigation of subsiding sinkholes and karst cavities through the integration of resistivity and seismic refraction techniques (Jabrane et al., 2023). Conversely, GPR has proven highly effective in structural and neotectonic studies, such as the detection and characterization of near-surface fault zones and Quaternary deformation features (Ercoli et al., 2021). These examples highlight how the combined use of ERT and GPR can provide a robust multiscale framework for subsurface interpretation across different geoscientific environments.”

Suggested References:

Jabrane, O.; Martínez-Pagán, P.; Martínez-Segura, M.A.; Alcalá, F.J.; El Azzab, D.; Vásconez-Maza, M.D.; Charroud, M. Integration of Electrical Resistivity Tomography and Seismic Refraction Tomography to Investigate Subsiding Sinkholes in Karst Areas. Water 2023, 15, 2192. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15122192

Ercoli, M.; Cirillo, D.; Pauselli, C.; Jol, H.M.; Brozzetti, F. Ground-penetrating radar signature of Quaternary faulting: a study from the Mt. Pollino region, southern Apennines, Italy. Solid Earth 2021, 12, 2573-2596. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-2573-2021 

We agree with the proposed change and the new references have been added. The practical examples help to understand better the specific strengths of each method.

Comment 4 – Broader applicability of the proposed approach

The Discussion and Conclusion sections clearly describe the relevance of your integrated ERT–GPR workflow for microbialite characterization. However, the manuscript would benefit from a brief expansion on the broader geoscientific applicability of your method. Since the proposed semi-automatic analysis pipeline (blob detection for ERT and peak detection for GPR) is not inherently limited to microbialites, it could be useful to highlight additional contexts where this combined approach may be employed.

For example, similar techniques could be applied to:

• Geological and sedimentological studies, such as imaging of carbonate buildups, travertine bodies, tufas, or diagenetic horizons.
• Structural geology, for detecting sub-circular resistive anomalies associated with fault-related breccias, karst cavities, vein systems, or fracture corridors.
• Geomorphology and Quaternary geology, including mapping of buried channels, paleosols, or sedimentary mounds.
• Engineering geology, such as the identification of voids, boulders, or heterogeneities relevant to foundations and subsurface stability.
• Environmental and hydrogeological investigations, for example, resistive lithological contrasts related to aquifer heterogeneity or percolation paths.

Including one or two of these examples—either in the Discussion or Conclusions—would help underline the transferability and versatility of your workflow beyond microbialite systems, thereby increasing the broader significance of the study.

The discussion section has been improved by adding examples where the proposed methodology could also be of interest. Thanks for the suggestion.

Comment 5 – Figures (general readability)

The overall quality of the figures is good; however, several of them would benefit from improved text readability. In their current form, many labels, captions, and annotations are quite small, and when printed on a standard A4 format, they become difficult to read or almost illegible.

In particular:

• Figures 1 and 2: In the legends, the acronyms of the geological formations are extremely small and become unreadable once printed. Enlarging the legend text.
• Figures 5 to 8: The text size (labels, numbers, annotations) is too small. Increasing font size.

Improving the readability of the figures will significantly strengthen the visual impact and accessibility of the manuscript. 

The pointed figures were changed to improve their readability.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the joint application of ERT and GPR methods to detect and map microbial structures in carbonate sediments. The methodological approach is robust and in line with the current state of the art. Furthermore, the study areas in Brazil and Spain are quite interesting.

I only have some minor comments.

• There are no information about the RMSE in the ERT data inversion.
• There are some technical features of the GPR data acquisition that could be easily summarized (lines 220-230).
• There are no information about the choice of the velocity of the EM wave propagation in the GPR data interpretation.
• The semi automated procedure could be better described including more considerations about the limits of the proposed approach in other geological and environmetal contexts.

Finally, I suggest the publication of the paper after a minor revision.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend a revision of the English form for removing typo errors and to improve the readability of the paper. There are many grammatical errors in punctuation in various parts of the text. 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the kind review. Following are the responses to the comments:

There are no information about the RMSE in the ERT data inversion.

The inversion errors have been added for both the Brasil and Spain datasets.

There are some technical features of the GPR data acquisition that could be easily summarized (lines 220-230).

The GPR workflow has been summarized.

There are no information about the choice of the velocity of the EM wave propagation in the GPR data interpretation.

The velocity of the EM wave was calculated in Brazil using a CMP acquisition while in Spain it was estimated using the morphology of the hyperbolas. The text was improved to explain this better.

The semi automated procedure could be better described including more considerations about the limits of the proposed approach in other geological and environmetal contexts.

The manuscript now explains that the proposed methodology can be used in other environments that share similar geophysical contrast as well as geometric patterns as the studied microbialites.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all the comments raised during the review process, and the revisions introduced have significantly improved the manuscript “Characterization of Microbialites using ERT and GPR: Insights from Neoproterozoic and Mesozoic Carbonate Systems,” submitted to Geosciences. The quality, clarity, and overall structure of the work have been enhanced, and the scientific content is now clearly and effectively presented.

Given the improvements made, the revised manuscript meets the standards of the journal and can be accepted for publication in Geosciences.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Enlist the main objectives of the study after stating the aim of the work.

2. Use a single-paragraph template for the abstract section. Multiple paragraphs in the abstract section are not encouraged.

3. The key findings in the characterization of microbialites are still not explained in the abstract section. Please update the section accordingly.

4. In the introduction section, begin with a discussion of carbonate rocks, followed by an explanation of the significance of microbialites in sedimentary rocks from various geological ages.

5. Figure 1: the field images are not of excellent quality. Replace the low-quality field images of stromatolites with high-quality images that show the distinctive sedimentary features of microbialites. Include additional field images that represent various forms of stromatolites.

 6. Geological settings: add a figure to show geological details for both studied areas.

7. Figure 2: The map with the location of the geophysical survey is not relevant. Include detailed information and a linear transect on the geological map to justify the selection of that transect, and also add a scale to the regional maps.

8. Figure 3: Redraw the figure and import it with a higher resolution, including geological and sedimentological details.

9. Figure 3: Location 1 and Location 2 on the map do not clearly explain the details of the study area. Redraw and update the figure.

10. Results section: the subheading "Results from standard methods" does not clearly define what kind of results it includes. Please replace and rephrase the subsection heading as needed.

11. In the discussion section, subdivide it into multiple subsections to enhance the manuscript's structure. The subsections may include the integration of ERT and GPR techniques, the resistivity contrast in ERT data, GPR reflections, and peak detection algorithms.

12. Please find the attached PDF file, which contains an analysis of text similarity in several paragraphs from the introduction, geological setting, and methods sections. Rephrase them to reduce text similarity. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1. Enlist the main objectives of the study after stating the aim of the work.

Response 1. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have now enlisted the main objectives immediately following the statement of the aim in the Introduction, ensuring that readers can clearly identify the specific goals of the study from the outset.

The aim of this research is to evaluate the usefulness of near surface geophysical methos for investigating the distribution and reservoir potential of microbial carbonates, with particular emphasis on their role in hydrocarbon systems and their significance as reservoirs across different geological environments. Additionally, these sites could be preserved as geological heritage, highlighting their scientific, educational, and cultural value while promoting the protection and study of unique microbial carbonate structures.

Comment 2. Use a single-paragraph template for the abstract section. Multiple paragraphs in the abstract section are not encouraged.

Response 2. We have reformatted the Abstract into a single paragraph, while maintaining logical flow and clarity.

Comments 3. The key findings in the characterization of microbialites are still not explained in the abstract section. Please update the section accordingly.

Response 3. We have updated the Abstract to include the main findings from the microbialite characterization, emphasizing their distinctive sedimentary features and relevance to the automated analysis.

Comments 4. In the introduction section, begin with a discussion of carbonate rocks, followed by an explanation of the significance of microbialites in sedimentary rocks from various geological ages.

Response 4. The Introduction has been revised to begin with an overview of carbonate rocks and their geological relevance, followed by a discussion of microbialites across different geological ages, highlighting their sedimentological importance.

Comments 5. Figure 1: the field images are not of excellent quality. Replace the low-quality field images of stromatolites with high-quality images that show the distinctive sedimentary features of microbialites. Include additional field images that represent various forms of stromatolites.

Response 5. We have replaced the original low-resolution field photographs with high-quality images taken during recent fieldwork.

Comments 6. Geological settings: add a figure to show geological details for both studied areas.

Response 6. We have added a new geological map showing detailed geological information for both study sites.

Comments 7. Figure 2: The map with the location of the geophysical survey is not relevant. Include detailed information and a linear transect on the geological map to justify the selection of that transect, and also add a scale to the regional maps.

Response 7. We have added a geological map showing detailed geological information for both study sites.

Comments 8: Figure 3: Redraw the figure and import it with a higher resolution, including geological and lithological details.

Response 8: Figure 3 has been redrawn in higher resolution, now including detailed geological annotations.

Comments 9: Figure 3: Location 1 and Location 2 on the map do not clearly explain the details of the study area. Redraw and update the figure.

Response 9: We have updated Figure 3 so that the positions of Location 1 and Location 2 are clearly labelled.

Comments 10: Results section: the subheading "Results from standard methods" does not clearly define what kind of results it includes. Please replace and rephrase the subsection heading as needed.

Response 10: We have rephrased the subsection title to “Results from Conventional ERT and GPR Analyses” to better reflect the content.

Comments 11: In the discussion section, subdivide it into multiple subsections to enhance the manuscript's structure. The subsections may include the integration of ERT and GPR techniques, the resistivity contrast in ERT data, GPR reflections, and peak detection algorithms.

Response 11: We have rephrased the subsection title to “Results from Conventional ERT and GPR Analyses” to better reflect the content.

Comments 12: Please find the attached PDF file, which contains an analysis of text similarity in several paragraphs from the introduction, geological setting, and methods sections. Rephrase them to reduce text similarity. 

Response 12: We have carefully revised the indicated paragraphs to rephrase and restructure sentences while maintaining the original meaning, thereby reducing text similarity as identified in the analysis.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the work done in this manuscript, but I find that it needs substantial work before publication.  

Firstly, as a reader, I was not told the objective of the study until ~Line 200. In the early parts of the mansucript, I was really struggling with the text.  The introduction needs to be refocused (see notes in text); the background needs substantially more information on the outcrop (and the features that make these microbialites of importance for such efforts); the descriptions of the experimental design are weak.  There is no background material on expected results for the reader, or why this enhanced algorithms are needed. There is no clear presentation of results or explanation of how the automated analysis has helped.  There is no real conclusion other than "this can be done". 

When combined, it suggests that the manuscript is an afterthought of a "play" project, without concerted effort to design an experiment or to ask a specific question.  As a result, the first half of the manuscript does not really fit with the overall stated goals of the manuscript. 

Is the manuscript useful?  Perhaps to a very small segment of the readership, but at present, it is not written in a way to make it useful for a broader readership. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the work done in this manuscript, but I find that it needs substantial work before publication.  

Firstly, as a reader, I was not told the objective of the study until ~Line 200. In the early parts of the manuscript, I was really struggling with the text.  The introduction needs to be refocused (see notes in text); the background needs substantially more information on the outcrop (and the features that make these microbialites of importance for such efforts); the descriptions of the experimental design are weak.  There is no background material on expected results for the reader, or why this enhanced algorithms are needed. There is no clear presentation of results or explanation of how the automated analysis has helped.  There is no real conclusion other than "this can be done". 

When combined, it suggests that the manuscript is an afterthought of a "play" project, without concerted effort to design an experiment or to ask a specific question.  As a result, the first half of the manuscript does not really fit with the overall stated goals of the manuscript. 

Is the manuscript useful?  Perhaps to a very small segment of the readership, but at present, it is not written in a way to make it useful for a broader readership. 

Responses:

We thank the reviewer for these detailed and constructive comments, which have been very helpful in improving the clarity and focus of our manuscript. We have undertaken a substantial revision to address the issues raised:

Clearer statement of objectives – We have now introduced the main objective of the study explicitly in the final paragraph of the Introduction, so that readers are aware of the research aim from the outset.

Refocused introduction – The Introduction has been restructured to follow a logical progression: (i) general context and significance of microbialites in geological research, (ii) specific relevance of the studied outcrop, and (iii) rationale for applying enhanced algorithms in this context. This ensures that the early part of the manuscript better aligns with the study’s goals.

Expanded background on the outcrop and microbialites – We have added a detailed geological description of the outcrop, highlighting the unique features of the microbialites that make them particularly relevant for testing automated analysis methods.

Improved experimental design section – We have rewritten this section to provide a step-by-step description of the data acquisition, preprocessing, and algorithmic analysis, along with references to similar approaches in previous studies.

Background on expected results and need for enhanced algorithms – We have now explained why existing methods are insufficient for this type of analysis and what improvements our enhanced algorithms bring.

Clearer presentation of results – The Results section has been reorganized to explicitly link each result to the corresponding research objective, making it easier to understand the contribution of the automated analysis.

Strengthened conclusions – We have expanded the Conclusions to include not only feasibility but also implications for future work, broader applicability, and limitations of the current approach.

These changes aim to address the reviewer’s concern that the manuscript appeared as an “afterthought.” We have ensured that the revised text reflects a coherent research question, a clearly designed experimental approach, and results that are relevant to a broader audience within the geoscience and remote sensing communities.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considerably improved the manuscript as per the comments from the reviewers. However, there is still room for further updates to enhance the quality of the presentation by addressing the following issues:

1. The abstract section fails to clearly state the key findings and comparisons between the ERT and GPR. Please include the quantitative aspects and differentiate the applications of both techniques for studying carbonate rocks.

2. Add the keyword "morphology of stromatolite buildup."

3. Add a statement that explains how microbial carbonates contribute to geobiology and the different depositional environments that promote the formation of microbialites or stromatolites.

4. Methods section: explain the ERT and GPR methodology in separate subsections to clarify the details of both techniques.

5. Reference section: Update the references with the journal guidelines and complete all the details of each reference. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considerably improved the manuscript as per the comments from the reviewers. However, there is still room for further updates to enhance the quality of the presentation by addressing the following issues:

Response: We thank the reviewer for these detailed and constructive comments, which have been very helpful in improving the clarity and focus of our manuscript. We have undertaken a substantial revision to address the issues raised. We have ensured that the revised text reflects a coherent research question, a clearly designed experimental approach, and results that are relevant to a broader audience within the geoscience and remote sensing communities.

Comment 1: The abstract section fails to clearly state the key findings and comparisons between the ERT and GPR. Please include the quantitative aspects and differentiate the applications of both techniques for studying carbonate rocks.

Response 1: We have revised the abstract to better highlight the comparisons between ERT and GPR and to emphasize the main findings of the study. Regarding the inclusion of quantitative aspects, our study is based on a qualitative and interpretative approach, as the results were not analyzed quantitatively. For this reason, we did not include numerical data in the abstract. Instead, we clarified the different applications and strengths of both techniques for investigating carbonate rocks.

Comment 2: Add the keyword "morphology of stromatolite buildup."

Response 2 The suggested keyword has been added.

Comment 3: Add a statement that explains how microbial carbonates contribute to geobiology and the different depositional environments that promote the formation of microbialites or stromatolites.

Response·3: We have added a new paragraph to address the role of microbial carbonates in geobiology and to explain the depositional environments that promote the formation of microbialites and stromatolites.

Comment 4. Methods section: explain the ERT and GPR methodology in separate subsections to clarify the details of both techniques.

Response 4: We understand the reviewer’s concern and agree on the need for greater clarity. Since the characteristics of the equipment and the field conditions varied significantly between the two study sites, we structured the Methods section around the locations and added subsections with clear titles. This approach allows us to explain the ERT and GPR methodologies within their respective contexts while avoiding redundancy. We believe this organization improves readability, though we are open to further restructuring if the editor prefers.The section was divided into the two locations as the characteristics of the equipment used and the field conditions were very different and needed distinct explanations. We added title subsections to better illustrate this.

Comment5: Reference section: Update the references with the journal guidelines and complete all the details of each reference.

Response 5: We have adjusted the reference list according to the Geosciences journal guidelines and completed all missing details, particularly for book references. The final version was generated using the journal’s Mendeley template. Please let us know if any additional adjustments are required.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx