Tectonic Control on Ultra-Deep Sub-Salt Trap Architecture: Insights from Multi-Detachment Modeling and Physical Simulations in the Kuqa Foreland Thrust Belt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates ultra-deep sub-salt structures in the Kuqa Depression of the Tarim Basin and proposes a ramp–flat multi-detachment deformation model. By integrating field observations, 3D seismic data, physical simulations with PIV monitoring, and balanced cross-section restoration, the authors systematically demonstrate the role of multi-detachment systems in controlling trap formation and distribution. The manuscript addresses a key issue in ultra-deep hydrocarbon exploration. Overall, the manuscript is well organized and can be recommended for publication after moderate revision.

1. Field observations are valuable for structural geology interpretation; however, the manuscript lacks sufficiently detailed field-based structural measurements. It is recommended that the authors add the attitudes (strike and dip) of strata and faults in the field photographs or interpretation figures (Figures 4, 6, and 7), which would greatly facilitate stress analysis.
2. The authors state that 3D seismic data are integrated in the study; however, only interpreted sections are presented in the manuscript. It is recommended to include representative original seismic profiles to support and validate the interpretations.
3. While the manuscript demonstrates clear innovation, the references are evidently insufficient or incomplete in several places. For example, Figure 9 (Mohr circle diagram at shear rupture) lacks an appropriate citation. The authors should carefully review the manuscript and add necessary references to ensure proper attribution.
4. The last sentence of the Abstract (lines 31–33) is not sufficiently supported by the discussion section and is recommended to be removed to maintain consistency.
5. There is a duplication of the location name “Baozidong” in Figure 2, which should be corrected. In addition, the term “ramp–flat multi-detachment model” is used inconsistently throughout the manuscript and should be standardized.
6. The manuscript is overly long and reads more like a report than a research article. In particular, the Results and Conclusions sections are excessively detailed. It is recommended to streamline these sections to better highlight the key findings and main contributions.
7. Although the study focuses on ultra-deep sub-salt trap architecture, the stratigraphic position of the salt-related traps is not clearly illustrated in either the text or figures and should be clarified. Furthermore, the discussion only briefly addresses the effects of late-stage strike-slip faulting on trap modification and the coupling between salt flow and detachment systems. A more in-depth analysis is needed. In addition, a clearer comparison with existing multi-detachment models in the Kuqa Depression would help to better emphasize the novelty and significance of this study.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (Comments and Suggestions for Authors):

(0) Comments and Suggestions: This study investigates ultra-deep sub-salt structures in the Kuqa Depression of the Tarim Basin and proposes a ramp–flat multi-detachment deformation model. By integrating field observations, 3D seismic data, physical simulations with PIV monitoring, and balanced cross-section restoration, the authors systematically demonstrate the role of multi-detachment systems in controlling trap formation and distribution. The manuscript addresses a key issue in ultra-deep hydrocarbon exploration. Overall, the manuscript is well organized and can be recommended for publication after moderate revision.

(0) Our Response: We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for the positive evaluation regarding the manuscript's structure and scientific value. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort dedicated to reviewing this work. In response to the constructive comments, we are fully committed to revising the manuscript with the utmost rigor to further enhance its quality.

(1) Comments and Suggestions: Field observations are valuable for structural geology interpretation; however, the manuscript lacks sufficiently detailed field-based structural measurements. It is recommended that the authors add the attitudes (strike and dip) of strata and faults in the field photographs or interpretation figures (Figures 4, 6, and 7), which would greatly facilitate stress analysis.

(1) Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestion regarding field structural measurements. We fully agree that field observation is central to geological interpretation, and that measuring the attitudes (strike and dip) of strata and faults is essential for clarifying stress analysis. Accordingly, we have added the corresponding attitudes(strike and dip) for strata and faults in the revised Figures 4, 6, and 7. We appreciate your guidance, which has made a significant contribution to improving the quality of this manuscript.

(2) Comments and Suggestions: The authors state that 3D seismic data are integrated in the study; however, only interpreted sections are presented in the manuscript. It is recommended to include representative original seismic profiles to support and validate the interpretations.

(2) Our Response: We fully acknowledge the importance of original seismic profiles in supporting the rationality of structural interpretations, and we sincerely apologize for their absence in the previous version. In response to your suggestion, we have added corresponding original seismic profiles to validate the interpretation results in Section 3.7 (Segmented Framework Cross-Section Scheme of the Kelasu Structural Belt, Kuqa De-pression: Insights from Ramp–Flat Multi-Detachment Tectonic Analysis), specifically in Figures 17 through 24. We are grateful for this critical suggestion, which has greatly improved the reliability of our interpretations.

(3) Comments and Suggestions: While the manuscript demonstrates clear innovation, the references are evidently insufficient or incomplete in several places. For example, Figure 9 (Mohr circle diagram at shear rupture) lacks an appropriate citation. The authors should carefully review the manuscript and add necessary references to ensure proper attribution.

(3) Our Response: We are truly encouraged by the reviewer's recognition of the innovation presented in this manuscript. However, we sincerely apologize for the oversight regarding the insufficient and incomplete references. To thoroughly address this issue, we have carefully re-read the entire manuscript and inserted the necessary citations in the appropriate sections to ensure proper attribution.

(4) Comments and Suggestions: The last sentence of the Abstract (lines 31–33) is not sufficiently supported by the discussion section and is recommended to be removed to maintain consistency.

(4) Our Response: Upon verification, we agree that the last sentence of the Abstract was not sufficiently supported by the Discussion section. To ensure the rigor and consistency of the manuscript, we have removed lines 31–33 as suggested. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion, which has helped improve the logical coherence of our work.

 (5) Comments and Suggestions: There is a duplication of the location name “Baozidong” in Figure 2, which should be corrected. In addition, the term “ramp–flat multi-detachment model” is used inconsistently throughout the manuscript and should be standardized.

(5) Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out these issues. We apologize for the oversight that led to the duplication of the location name "Baozidong" in Figure 2. We have re-verified the map and corrected the lower duplicate instance to "Awata River". In addition, we have standardized the term "ramp–flat multi-detachment model" throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency and standardization.

(6) Comments and Suggestions: The manuscript is overly long and reads more like a report than a research article. In particular, the Results and Conclusions sections are excessively detailed. It is recommended to streamline these sections to better highlight the key findings and main contributions.

(6) Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We fully appreciate the value of conciseness and clarity in scientific writing, and in response, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript to improve its readability.

Specifically, we have removed redundant statements, merged overlapping paragraphs where appropriate, and streamlined figure captions and descriptive passages—particularly in the Results and Conclusions sections—while ensuring that no essential scientific content or interpretive logic was compromised.

That said, we would like to respectfully highlight the applied and methodological context of this study. The Kuqa Depression in the Tarim Basin represents one of the most active and strategically significant ultra-deep hydrocarbon exploration frontiers for PetroChina, where subsalt trap prediction remains a major technical challenge. In this setting, the introduction of a novel ramp–flat multi-detachment model constitutes not only a theoretical advance but also a practical framework intended for direct application in exploration targeting.

Given the high stakes and geological complexity involved, we believe that comprehensive validation from multiple independent lines of evidence—including field outcrops, ultra-deep seismic interpretation, 2D/3D structural restoration, and analog modeling—is not merely desirable but necessary to establish the robustness and transferability of the proposed model. The detailed presentation of deformation mechanisms (e.g., late-stage strike-slip overprint on trap architecture, mechanical coupling among salt–mudstone–coal detachment systems) is therefore integral to demonstrating why this model improves upon previous interpretations and how it can be reliably applied in analogous settings.

In short, while we have endeavored to enhance focus and flow through modest textual refinements, we have intentionally retained sufficient technical depth to ensure the model’s scientific rigor and operational relevance are fully substantiated. We hope the revised manuscript now strikes an appropriate balance between concision and completeness, effectively highlighting our key contributions without compromising the evidentiary foundation upon which they rest.

Again, we deeply appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful guidance.

(7) Comments and Suggestions: Although the study focuses on ultra-deep sub-salt trap architecture, the stratigraphic position of the salt-related traps is not clearly illustrated in either the text or figures and should be clarified. Furthermore, the discussion only briefly addresses the effects of late-stage strike-slip faulting on trap modification and the coupling between salt flow and detachment systems. A more in-depth analysis is needed. In addition, a clearer comparison with existing multi-detachment models in the Kuqa Depression would help to better emphasize the novelty and significance of this study.

(7) Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the professional guidance.

1.Stratigraphic Position: We recognize that the stratigraphic position of salt-related traps requires clearer illustration. Accordingly, we have added relevant descriptions in the text and updated Figures 8 and 11 to explicitly clarify the architecture of ultra-deep sub-salt traps. Specifically, we have identified the Cretaceous Bashijiqike (k₁bs) and Yageliemu (K₁y) Formations as the primary targets. We clarified that while the Bashijiqike Formation serves as the basis for stable production, the Yageliemu Formation represents the strategic frontier for deep sub-salt risk exploration. Furthermore, we elaborated on the fact that the intersection and combination relationships of the sub-salt multi-detachment fault system—controlled by the structural decoupling effect of the regional master detachment and the coordinating role of mudstone detachments—are directly linked to the validity of sub-salt structural traps. Therefore, this study focuses on these mechanisms to provide a comprehensive analysis of trap effectiveness.

2.Faulting and Coupling: We have provided a more in-depth discussion regarding the effects of late-stage strike-slip faulting on trap modification and its coupling relationship with the multi-detachment system.

3.Model Comparison: Furthermore, we have added a comparative analysis with existing multi-detachment interpretation schemes in the Kuqa Depression to better underscore the novelty and significance of this study.

We are deeply grateful for all your comments, which have played a pivotal role in improving the quality of our manuscript.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of this paper is to study the tectonic control on ultra-deep sub-salt trap architecture, focusing on the insights from multi-detachment modeling and physical simulations in the Kuqa foreland thrust belt. In particular, the way that the multi-detachment systems govern trap formation, integrating field geological investigations of Mesozoic outcrops, 3D seismic interpretation, and quantitative physical simulations monitored by Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) was investigated, while five key controls on deformation architecture were identified. Therefore, an integrated “tectonic control on traps” framework was established in this paper, providing a transferable paradigm for ultra-deep hydrocarbon exploration in mature salt-influenced fold-and-thrust belts worldwide, such as the Zagros Fold–Thrust Belt and the Sub-Andean zones.

This is an interesting and well-structured paper, in which all necessary sections (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions) have been considered. Moreover, the “Materials and Methods”, “Results” and “Discussion” sections are divided into sub-sections, resulting in a more detailed analysis. In addition, all Figures and Diagrams are consistent with the analysis provided in the manuscript. However, some improvements should be implemented. In particular:

• Lines 105-120: The seismic interpretation is described well; however, no seismic facies analysis or spectral decomposition results are provided. Please, modify.
• Lines 155-166: The PIV monitoring results are mentioned; however, a quantitative analysis is missing (e.g. displacement fields, strain localization, etc.). Please, modify.
• Lines 231-244: Scaling ratios (length, time, stress) are analyzed, but specific values are not provided. Similarly, it is mentioned that “All experiments were repeated multiple times…”; this should be more accurate. Please, analyze further.
• Lines 277-280: The field survey did not highlight typical evidence of detachment in Cretaceous Shushanhe Formation mudstones; however, it is considered in the next sections as a key regional detachment. This should be further clarified.
• Lines 329-342: Although the contrast between ramp-flat and listric geometry is stated, no uncertainty metrics are provided. Please, modify.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 (Comments and Suggestions for Authors):

(0) Comments and Suggestions: The objective of this paper is to study the tectonic control on ultra-deep sub-salt trap architecture, focusing on the insights from multi-detachment modeling and physical simulations in the Kuqa foreland thrust belt. In particular, the way that the multi-detachment systems govern trap formation, integrating field geological investigations of Mesozoic outcrops, 3D seismic interpretation, and quantitative physical simulations monitored by Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) was investigated, while five key controls on deformation architecture were identified. Therefore, an integrated “tectonic control on traps” framework was established in this paper, providing a transferable paradigm for ultra-deep hydrocarbon exploration in mature salt-influenced fold-and-thrust belts worldwide, such as the Zagros Fold–Thrust Belt and the Sub-Andean zones.

This is an interesting and well-structured paper, in which all necessary sections (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions) have been considered. Moreover, the “Materials and Methods”, “Results” and “Discussion” sections are divided into sub-sections, resulting in a more detailed analysis. In addition, all Figures and Diagrams are consistent with the analysis provided in the manuscript. However, some improvements should be implemented. In particular:

(0) Our Response: We are delighted to learn that our research objectives and the logical flow of the manuscript were clearly understood and appreciated. We strove to ensure the paper was logically structured, comprehensive, and rigorous, so your recognition is a great encouragement to us. We have carefully considered all your valuable comments and completed the revisions accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below. We sincerely thank you for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing this manuscript. Your constructive guidance has played a pivotal role in significantly improving the quality of our work.

Best regards!

(1) Comments and Suggestions: Lines 105-120: The seismic interpretation is described well; however, no seismic facies analysis or spectral decomposition results are provided. Please, modify.

(1) Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We agree that uninterpreted seismic data is crucial for validating interpretation results. We have fully incorporated your suggestion and added Figures 17–24 in Section 3.7 (Segmented Framework Cross-Section Scheme of the Kelasu Structural Belt, Kuqa Depression: Insights from Ramp–Flat Multi-Detachment Tectonic Analysis). These figures display the original seismic profiles to assist in verifying the seismic interpretations presented in the manuscript.

(2) Comments and Suggestions: Lines 155-166: The PIV monitoring results are mentioned; however, a quantitative analysis is missing (e.g. displacement fields, strain localization, etc.). Please, modify.

(2) Our Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. Incorporating suggestions from the reviewers, we have supplemented the physical modeling of transpressional strike-slip tectonics to conduct a PIV simple shear vector analysis. We have added Fig. 27 to illustrate this monitoring process and integrated the analysis into Section 4.1, "Controlling Factors of Subsalt Ramp–Flat Multi-Detachment Deformation." This addition has significantly enriched the paper's perspective. We sincerely appreciate your invaluable contribution to improving the quality of this manuscript.

(3) Comments and Suggestions: Lines 231-244: Scaling ratios (length, time, stress) are analyzed, but specific values are not provided. Similarly, it is mentioned that “All experiments were repeated multiple times…”; this should be more accurate. Please, analyze further.

(3) Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out the ambiguities regarding scaling and experimental reproducibility. Your comments have significantly enhanced the rigor of our study. In response, we have thoroughly revised Section 2.2.3 (“Materials and Scaling”) to provide explicit numerical values for the geometric scale (1:100,000) and the corresponding geological strain rates (10⁻¹⁴–10⁻¹³ s⁻¹), as well as to clarify that each tectonic scenario was independently replicated at least three times under identical conditions. These revisions aim to precisely define the experimental setups and eliminate any potential ambiguity. We greatly appreciate your valuable guidance.

(4) Comments and Suggestions: Lines 277-280: The field survey did not highlight typical evidence of detachment in Cretaceous Shushanhe Formation mudstones; however, it is considered in the next sections as a key regional detachment. This should be further clarified.

(4) Our Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this critical point. We would like to clarify the issue as follows:

Although typical field evidence of detachment structures developed within the Cretaceous Shushanhe Formation was not identified in outcrops, our structural analysis of uninterpreted seismic profiles in the Kuqa Depression reveals its control on the sub-salt multi-detachment tectonic model. Specifically, the thick mudstones of the Shushanhe Formation primarily function to coordinate detachment processes and influence the linkage relationships of secondary detachment faults. This is associated with stress state variations during non-coaxial deformation, thereby affecting the migration of structural highs and directly influencing risk exploration deployment for sub-salt targets.

However, we agree with your assessment that the Shushanhe Formation should not be classified as a "regional detachment layer." We have reorganized the text and carefully checked the terminology to ensure accuracy and consistency with this view.

(5) Comments and Suggestions: Although the contrast between ramp-flat and listric geometry is stated, no uncertainty metrics are provided. Please, modify.

(5) Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that quantifying uncertainty in geometric interpretation is essential. In fact, a comprehensive regional study by Yongxu Mei et al. (2025)—which we now explicitly cite in the revised manuscript (Section 3.6)—has already addressed this issue for the Kuqa Depression. That work systematically documented ten types of detachment structures, established a seismic facies atlas for ramp-flat geometries, and evaluated spatial variations in interpretational uncertainty across the entire depression. Our current interpretation adheres to these established criteria, and we have added a citation to this foundational study to provide readers with access to the full uncertainty framework and seismic pattern library.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive comments that have significantly improved the quality and presentation of our manuscript. We also deeply appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing this work. We wish you all the best in your future research and endeavors.

Best regards!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript proposed is very interesting, because you have reconstructed the structural evolution of a huge area using data coming from field, modeling, seismic and wells.

However, your manuscript needs some improvement:

• You are missing a map with the country of the Tarim basin.
• In figure 1, include the wells’ locations.
• You stated that you used a 3D seismic and well logging data, but they are missing from the manuscript. Add figures and descriptions.
• You stated, “The experiments employed a combination of granular and viscoelastic materials to 231 simulate the mechanical stratification of the crust” Why didn’t you include pictures or line drawings?
• Missing a regional stratigraphy of the area considering all detachment levels.
• Missing a structural setting of the area.
• The legend of the figures from 13 to 24 is illegible.
• Improve the resolution of the other figures.
• The manuscript contains many typos.
• The reference is incomplete.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 (Comments and Suggestions for Authors):

(0) Comments and Suggestions:

Dear Authors,

The manuscript proposed is very interesting, because you have reconstructed the structural evolution of a huge area using data coming from field, modeling, seismic and wells. However, your manuscript needs some improvement:

(0) Our Response: We sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of our manuscript and your recognition of the integrated approach—combining field data, modeling, seismic surveys, and well logs—to reconstruct the structural evolution of such an extensive region.

This study builds upon substantial preliminary work supported by a research project from Tarim Oilfield (CNPC), which provided the solid foundation for our analysis. We are grateful for your constructive comments aimed at enhancing the quality of our work. We have carefully studied your suggestions and conducted a thorough revision of the manuscript, addressing each point systematically. Our point-by-point responses and corresponding revisions are detailed below:

(1) Comments and Suggestions: You are missing a map with the country of the Tarim basin.

(1) Our Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. Indeed, including a map indicating the national context of the Tarim Basin will enhance the clarity of the study area and improve readability. In response to your comment, we have incorporated an inset map (Figure 1) showing the location of the Tarim Basin within China.

(2) Comments and Suggestions: In figure 1, include the wells’ locations.

(2) Our Response: We appreciate this comment. The locations of the relevant wells have now been added to Figure 1 to provide better spatial context.

(3) Comments and Suggestions: You stated that you used a 3D seismic and well logging data, but they are missing from the manuscript. Add figures and descriptions.

(3) Our Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion and for highlighting this key issue. We fully acknowledge the importance of 3D seismic and well logging data.

Regarding the well logging data, it was primarily utilized for well-seismic calibration and horizon interpretation. These data were provided by the Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, Tarim Oilfield (CNPC). The rationality and reliability of this calibration are validated through multiple well-tie seismic interpretation sections.

In response to your comment, we have fully incorporated these data and added Figures 17–24 in Section 3.7 (Segmented Framework Cross-Section Scheme of the Kelasu Structural Belt, Kuqa Depression: Insights from Ramp–Flat Multi-Detachment Tectonic Analysis).

(4) Comments and Suggestions: You stated, “The experiments employed a combination of granular and viscoelastic materials to 231 simulate the mechanical stratification of the crust” Why didn’t you include pictures or line drawings?

(4) Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments regarding the design of our physical analog experiments. We fully acknowledge the utility of schematic illustrations in intuitively conveying experimental material configurations and setup details.

We would like to clarify that Section 2.2.3 (“Materials and Scaling”) already provides a comprehensive textual description of the experimental setup, including: (i) the materials used and their geological analogs; (ii) the geometric and kinematic scaling principles; and (iii) the individual model designs for each tectonic segment (Awat, Bozi–Dabei, Dabei–Keshen, and Keshen–Dongqiu), covering sandbox dimensions, boundary conditions, shortening rates, preparation methods for basement paleo-uplifts, and placement of marker horizons. These details are intended to clearly demonstrate how the combination of granular materials (quartz sand) and viscoelastic materials (micro glass beads and silicone gel) effectively simulates the mechanical stratification of the crust.

Given the overall length constraints of the manuscript—and considering that this comment closely overlaps with a previous reviewer’s suggestion (which we have already addressed thoroughly through textual revisions)—we have carefully decided not to include additional schematic diagrams of the model setup at this stage. This choice aims to avoid redundancy while maintaining conciseness. We are confident that the current level of descriptive detail sufficiently ensures the reproducibility and scientific rigor of our experimental approach.

We again appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback.

(5) Comments and Suggestions: Missing a regional stratigraphy of the area considering all detachment levels.

(5) Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We would like to clarify that the revised Figure 8 is, in fact, a regional stratigraphic column that integrates lithological succession with mechanical stratification. In this figure, potential detachment horizons have been identified based on both lithology and rheological properties.

Specifically, non-ductile layers ranked (1) through (7) correspond to regionally significant detachment levels. As stated in the main text, these horizons are primarily composed of evaporites (gypsum/salt), coal seams, and carbonaceous shales, which act as major detachment zones and are distinct from more common mudstone layers in terms of their mechanical behavior.

We have explicitly clarified this interpretation in both the caption of Figure 8 and the relevant sections of the main text to avoid any ambiguity regarding the nature and distribution of these detachment surfaces.

(6) Comments and Suggestions: Missing a structural setting of the area.

(6) Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of regional tectonic context. We would like to clarify that the regional tectonic framework is comprehensively presented in Figure 1. Specifically, the inset map shows the location of the study area within the Tarim Basin and its broader position in China, while the main panel explicitly illustrates the structural architecture of the Kuqa Depression, including key tectonic units such as the Kelasu Thrust Belt and the Qiulitag Fold–Thrust Belt, along with major faults and basin geometry.

To ensure clarity, we have revised both the caption of Figure 1 and the corresponding text in  Introduction to explicitly state that this figure serves as the primary overview of the regional tectonic setting. We believe these enhancements adequately address the reviewer’s concern.

(7) Comments and Suggestions: The legend of the figures from 13 to 24 is illegible.

(7) Our Response: We have revised the legends of Figures 13–24 to maximize their readability and clarity.

(8) Comments and Suggestions: Improve the resolution of the other figures.

(8) Our Response: We have regenerated and replaced all figures in the manuscript. Additionally, we have carefully scrutinized the PDF conversion to ensure that the resolution of every figure meets the required standards for readability and clarity. We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion.

(9) Comments and Suggestions: The manuscript contains many typos.

(9) Our Response: We have carefully proofread the entire manuscript to minimize typos and ensure the text is free of errors. We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion.

(10) Comments and Suggestions: The reference is incomplete.

(10) Our Response: We sincerely apologize for the oversight regarding the incomplete references. To thoroughly address this issue, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and added the missing citations in the appropriate sections to ensure the completeness and academic rigor of our work.

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for all their constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We are also deeply encouraged by your positive feedback on the topic and significance of our work. Thank you again for your time and effort.

Best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have comprehensively addressed all questions and concerns raised in my review.  Congratulations!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

Thank you for improving the manuscript.

The additional data and changes made, make your research more interesting and a further step towards understanding the Tarim Basin.