Basin-Mountain Structure and Evolution in the Northeastern Junggar Basin, Xinjiang, Northwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read with interest the manuscript by Lei Wen and co-authors. The authors present an integrated interpretation of seismic and electromagnetic data to outline a composite transect that characterizes the deep-to-shallow geological architecture of the Altai Orogenic Belt–Ulungu Depression system.

Overall, the dataset is extensive, and the results are generally well presented. However, despite the scientific relevance of the study, the manuscript has several significant shortcomings that currently limit a comprehensive understanding and evaluation of the results. In particular, I recommend improving the data presentation section, which is sometimes difficult to follow. Before the manuscript can be considered for publication, the following major issues should be addressed.

The Introduction requires substantial improvement. The scientific motivation for conducting the study is not clearly articulated. The authors should better explain why this research is needed, which knowledge gap it addresses, and what novel contribution it provides to the existing literature. At present, the rationale underlying the study is insufficiently developed, making it difficult for readers to fully appreciate its significance and broader implications.

A dedicated Methods section is completely lacking, and this is, in my opinion, the most critical weakness of the manuscript. Scientific studies must provide sufficient methodological detail to ensure reproducibility and allow readers to properly evaluate the robustness of the results. The authors should clearly describe the data acquisition procedures, processing workflows, interpretation methodologies, and the strategy adopted to integrate seismic and electromagnetic datasets. Without an adequate methodological framework, the study cannot be fully assessed or reproduced by other researchers.

The Discussion section is disproportionately brief compared to the other sections of the manuscript. I strongly encourage the authors to expand this part by providing a more in-depth interpretation of the results and by placing their findings within a broader geological context. Comparisons with similar tectonic settings worldwide would significantly strengthen the manuscript and help readers understand the implications of the proposed tectonic model beyond the study area.

The data presentation section should also be revised and clarified. In its current form, it is sometimes difficult to follow the sequence of structural and tectonic events that characterize the geological evolution of the area. A clearer organization of the results, together with more detailed explanations of the various tectonic stages, would greatly improve readability and facilitate comprehension of the proposed interpretations.

Additional minor comments and technical corrections are provided in the annotated manuscript.

I suggest MAJOR revision

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please improve the English by using a Editing agency

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thank you very much for your kindly comments and advises.

We the authors have revised the manuscript carefully.

Here are the reply to your comments and advises.

 

Comments 1. However, despite the scientific relevance of the study, the manuscript has several significant shortcomings that currently limit a comprehensive understanding and evaluation of the results. In particular, I recommend improving the data presentation section, which is sometimes difficult to follow.

Response:

Thank you. We have revised the data presentation section “4. Tectonic Deformation Styles” and ”5. Structural evolution process”.

 

Comments 2.The Introduction requires substantial improvement. The scientific motivation for conducting the study is not clearly articulated. The authors should better explain why this research is needed, which knowledge gap it addresses, and what novel contribution it provides to the existing literature. At present, the rationale underlying the study is insufficiently developed, making it difficult for readers to fully appreciate its significance and broader implications.

Response:

Thank you. We have added the novel contribution in the end of the section “1.Introduction”.

 

 

Comments 3. A dedicated Methods section is completely lacking, and this is, in my opinion, the most critical weakness of the manuscript. Scientific studies must provide sufficient methodological detail to ensure reproducibility and allow readers to properly evaluate the robustness of the results. The authors should clearly describe the data acquisition procedures, processing workflows, interpretation methodologies, and the strategy adopted to integrate seismic and electromagnetic datasets. Without an adequate methodological framework, the study cannot be fully assessed or reproduced by other researchers.

Response:

Thank you. We have added the section “2.methods”.

 

Comments 4. The Discussion section is disproportionately brief compared to the other sections of the manuscript. I strongly encourage the authors to expand this part by providing a more in-depth interpretation of the results and by placing their findings within a broader geological context.

Response:

Thank you. We have expand the section “6 Discussion on the formation mechanism”.

 

Comments 5. Comparisons with similar tectonic settings worldwide would significantly strengthen the manuscript and help readers understand the implications of the proposed tectonic model beyond the study area.

Response:

Thank you. We have added the Comparisons with similar tectonic settings worldwide in “6.4. Global Comparison: The Apennines Foreland Basin System”.

 

Comments 6. The data presentation section should also be revised and clarified. In its current form, it is sometimes difficult to follow the sequence of structural and tectonic events that characterize the geological evolution of the area. A clearer organization of the results, together with more detailed explanations of the various tectonic stages, would greatly improve readability and facilitate comprehension of the proposed interpretations.

Response:

Thank you. We have revised the data presentation section 4 and 5.

 

Comments 7. Additional minor comments and technical corrections are provided in the annotated manuscript.

Response:

Thank you. We have revised according to the annotated manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reconstructs the tectonic evolution of the Ulungu Depression in the northeastern Junggar Basin since the Late Paleozoic based on seismic, electromagnetic, and drilling data. It proposes a three‑stage foreland basin evolution model and, for the first time, identifies Neogene–Quaternary normal faults in this region. The study integrates deep to shallow structural perspectives, presents robust data evidence, and holds significant value for understanding intracontinental deformation mechanisms in the southeastern Central Asian Orogenic Belt and for hydrocarbon exploration. The following revisions are recommended before acceptance.

 

Specific Comments

1. Insufficient resolution of figures

Many figures (including but not limited to Figs. 6–10) lack sufficient clarity, and some details are difficult to discern, which hampers the review process. The authors should replace these with high‑resolution images in accordance with journal requirements, ensuring that faults, stratigraphic boundaries, and structural annotations are clearly visible.

2. Fig. 8 provides limited information; suggest merging or deleting

Figure 8 (satellite image showing electrical profile locations) provides little additional information beyond what is already presented in Figs. 1 and 2. It is recommended that key information from Fig. 8 (e.g., electrical profile locations, relationship between river and structures) be incorporated into Fig. 1 or Fig. 2, and that Fig. 8 be deleted to streamline the figure set.

3. Non‑standard caption for Fig. 9

The caption "B-D'" for Fig. 9 is not standard. It is suggested to revise it to something like "Integrated geological structure interpretation section along B-B' and D-D'" or "Composite interpretation of profiles B-B' and D-D'" to more accurately reflect the content of the figure.

4. Insufficient comparison with existing models; need to highlight innovations

The manuscript cites previous studies on the Ulungu Depression (e.g., Tang et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2015) multiple times, but does not clearly state what new insights or revisions the present study offers regarding tectonic stage division, fault activity timing, or basin type interpretation. The authors should explicitly compare their model with previous ones and highlight their contributions, preferably in the Introduction or Discussion section.

5. Overlap and redundancy between Sections 3 and 4; suggest merging and restructuring

Section 3 (Tectonic Deformation Styles) is overly fragmented, with some paragraphs repeating the same phenomena (e.g., discovery of normal faults, three unconformity surfaces). Moreover, it heavily overlaps with Section 4 (Structural Evolution Process). It is recommended to merge Sections 3 and 4 into a single section titled "Tectonic Deformation Characteristics and Evolution Process", organized chronologically (Late Paleozoic → Mesozoic → Cenozoic), to avoid repetition and improve logical flow.

6. Geodynamic support lacking for the interpretation of normal faults

The authors interpret the Neogene–Quaternary normal faults as products of "compressional stress relaxation" during orogenic quiescence. However, no geodynamic evidence (e.g., focal mechanism solutions, paleostress inversion, analog modeling) is provided to support this interpretation. It is recommended that the authors either provide regional stress field data or cite relevant literature on normal faults developed in similar tectonic settings (e.g., Tianshan, Tarim Basin) to strengthen their explanation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thank you very much for your kindly comments and advises.

We the authors have revised the manuscript carefully.

Here are the reply to your comments and advises.

 

Comments 1. Insufficient resolution of figures

Many figures (including but not limited to Figs. 6–10) lack sufficient clarity, and some details are difficult to discern, which hampers the review process. The authors should replace these with high‑resolution images in accordance with journal requirements, ensuring that faults, stratigraphic boundaries, and structural annotations are clearly visible.

Response:

Thank you. We have revised the figures 1-10 to high‑resolution images.

 

Comments 2. Fig. 8 provides limited information; suggest merging or deleting

Figure 8 (satellite image showing electrical profile locations) provides little additional information beyond what is already presented in Figs. 1 and 2. It is recommended that key information from Fig. 8 (e.g., electrical profile locations, relationship between river and structures) be incorporated into Fig. 1 or Fig. 2, and that Fig. 8 be deleted to streamline the figure set.

Response:

Thank you. We have deleted fig.8.

 

Comments 3. Non‑standard caption for Fig. 9

The caption "B-D'" for Fig. 9 is not standard. It is suggested to revise it to something like "Integrated geological structure interpretation section along B-B' and D-D'" or "Composite interpretation of profiles B-B' and D-D'" to more accurately reflect the content of the figure.

Response:

Thank you. We have revised the figure’s title to “Fig.8 Integrated geological structure interpretation section along B-B' and D-D' in northeastern Junggar Basin”.

 

Comments 4. Insufficient comparison with existing models; need to highlight innovations

The manuscript cites previous studies on the Ulungu Depression (e.g., Tang et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2015) multiple times, but does not clearly state what new insights or revisions the present study offers regarding tectonic stage division, fault activity timing, or basin type interpretation. The authors should explicitly compare their model with previous ones and highlight their contributions, preferably in the Introduction or Discussion section.

Response:

Thank you. We have added the novel contribution in the end of the section “1.Introduction”.

 

 

Comments 5. Overlap and redundancy between Sections 3 and 4; suggest merging and restructuring

Section 3 (Tectonic Deformation Styles) is overly fragmented, with some paragraphs repeating the same phenomena (e.g., discovery of normal faults, three unconformity surfaces). Moreover, it heavily overlaps with Section 4 (Structural Evolution Process). It is recommended to merge Sections 3 and 4 into a single section titled "Tectonic Deformation Characteristics and Evolution Process", organized chronologically (Late Paleozoic → Mesozoic → Cenozoic), to avoid repetition and improve logical flow.

Response:

Thank you. We have revised the Sections 3 and 4.

 

 

Comments 6. Geodynamic support lacking for the interpretation of normal faults

The authors interpret the Neogene–Quaternary normal faults as products of "compressional stress relaxation" during orogenic quiescence. However, no geodynamic evidence (e.g., focal mechanism solutions, paleostress inversion, analog modeling) is provided to support this interpretation. It is recommended that the authors either provide regional stress field data or cite relevant literature on normal faults developed in similar tectonic settings (e.g., Tianshan, Tarim Basin) to strengthen their explanation.

Response:

Thank you. We have added the Similar extensional structures developed in the Tarim Basin in the Sections 6.3.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the revised version of the paper "Basin-Mountain Structure and Evolution in the Northeastern Junggar Basin, Xinjiang, Northwest China" by Lei Wen and coauthors. The authors performed a rigorous revision of the manuscript following many of suggestions indicated by reviewer during the first round of revision. Also, I appreciated the work on the used language. However some minor issue remains and they are reported below:

The similarity with Norhern Apennines foredeep basins is right in part as the basin investigated by the authors for the work under consideration record a little bit more complex geological evolution. I suggest to stress again the differences, already outlined by authors, a little bit. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is in a good form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thank you very much for your kindly comments and advises.

We the authors have revised the manuscript carefully again.

Here are the reply to your comments and advises.

 

Comments 1. The similarity with Norhern Apennines foredeep basins is right in part as the basin investigated by the authors for the work under consideration record a little bit more complex geological evolution. I suggest to stress again the differences, already outlined by authors, a little bit.  

Response:

Thank you. We have added the differences between Northern Apennines foredeep basins and Ulungu depression, in section “6.4. Global Comparison: The Apennines Foreland Basin System” .

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Deletion of Fig. 8 has resulted in loss of electrical profile locations (D-D′ and E-E′), which are no longer marked on any remaining figure. These profiles are essential for readers to locate the electrical transects discussed in Section 3.5. Please add the D-D′ and E-E′ profile locations to Fig. 1 or Fig. 2 to maintain full traceability of all geophysical data presented in the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thank you very much for your kindly comments and advises.

We the authors have revised the manuscript carefully again.

Here are the reply to your comments and advises.

 

Comments :

Deletion of Fig. 8 has resulted in loss of electrical profile locations (D-D′ and E-E′), which are no longer marked on any remaining figure. These profiles are essential for readers to locate the electrical transects discussed in Section 3.5. Please add the D-D′ and E-E′ profile locations to Fig. 1 or Fig. 2 to maintain full traceability of all geophysical data presented in the study..

Response:

Thank you. We have revised the figures 2, displayed the D-D′ and E-E′ profile locations.