Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting paper; however, the reader is getting lost in Section 2 and partially in Section 3. I  think that you should 'help' the reader by providing some more explanatory comments on the development of the analysis. 

Author Response

Firstly, thank reviewers for detailed and pertinent comments.

The revised version is updated in detail according to review comments, and other minor problems exposed in the paper are revised. For detailed revisions, please refer to the manuscript.

The answers to comments of reviewers are listed in order as the following forms.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer has significant problems to understand the concept and argumentation of the paper.

This paper is hard zu read and understand and needs editorial improvements.

Line / Remark

34: the statement is to generic

35: Not clear what contribution the Iron ore reference has

50: States of what?

67 unclear statement

132: Explaination needed

137: spatial transfer model? Please explain

139: Transfer mode and phases?

163: Complexity of channel: wind etc....

166: metaphase?

171: pls check grammar

178: The model needs a better explaination. Especially R

219: The reviewer has significant problems to understand the concept of C3E

248: The figure and and its empirical basis is unclear

274: Where these numbers are comming from (empirical basis?)

290 and 294: The figures need explaination

318: The contribution of this figure and its grounding is unclear

Author Response

Firstly, thank reviewers for detailed and pertinent comments.

The revised version is updated in detail according to review comments, and other minor problems exposed in the paper are revised. For detailed revisions, please refer to the manuscript.

The answers to comments of reviewers are listed in order as the following forms.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

overall your paper is OK. The is a missing explanation what is “stage”. Please also check the figures and text in figures.

Regards,

Author Response

Firstly, thank reviewers for detailed and pertinent comments.

The revised version is updated in detail according to review comments, and other minor problems exposed in the paper are revised. For detailed revisions, please refer to the manuscript.

The answers to comments of reviewers are listed in order as the following forms.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the extentions

Author Response

Thanks again for comments. Please see the response and revised edition.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf