Complex Characteristic of Zircon from Granitoids of the Verkhneurmiysky Massif (Amur Region)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The ms presents interesting data on zircons (relation of zircon crystals within thin sections to other minerals; morphology of zircon grains = “SE images from 120 grains”; inner structure of zircons using BSE and CL-Images (number of analyses not specified); trace elements = “67 analyses from 41 grains”) from two granite types (biotite granites and zinnwaldite granites) and tries to understand the chemical changes in zircons with time. It is based on zircons from13 samples (8 from Bt granites, 5 from Zwd granites; almost 1000 grains alltogether).
The study comes to the conclusion that
- zircons have a “complex characteristic” with a “wide range of morphological, structural, and chemical properties”
- the “main evolution trend of zircon morphology in granites” was identified
- the “high-temperature morphotypes are followed by low-temperature ones with more complicated internal structure with secondary alteration zones, mineral inclusions, pores, and cracks”
- with the decrease of crystallization temparature the content of “volatile (H2O, F), LIL (Cs, Sr), HFS (Hf, Nb) and rare-earth elements” in zircons increase
- the rims of zircons from Znw-granites are more enriched in such elements compared to zircon rims from Bt granites
- and that these zircon features can help to identify Li-F granites and related tin mineralization.
I can follow (and agree with) most of these conclusions (but not all – see later). However, in the present form I cannot recommend the ms for publication but only after substantial revision. In the following I try to specify the main points of criticism.
- Very difficult to read and understand because of the English style (see some comments in the annotated ms up to page 13)
- Many statements in the text that are not justified or at least not explained (see annotated ms – “please provide arguments”)
- Not sufficient quality of Figures (see annotated ms)
- Needs a better presentation of the results: what samples were analysed with what methods? Results have to be presented in tables where samples numbers have to be given
- Needs a better (more scientific) discussion: why high- and low-T zircons. Please provide arguments? You measured Ti contents in Zrn – why did you not calculate the temp? Otherwise it is difficult to follow why they should have different temperatures?
- I cannot follow two conclusions ((i) different temperature of zircons; (II) that zircon features are a better indicator for Li-F granites than bulk rock geochemistry.
I appreciate, however, the abundance, (probably) high quality of the data, and the combination of zircon methods – good work! Therefore, this study is worth to be published in an international Journal like Minerals. However, the ms should be substantially improved (see above). Good luck.
see also attached file:
- - annotated ms
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We wish to thank you for your helpful comments in this first round of review. Your remarks provided valuable insights to refine the contents and analysis. We have tried to address the issues raised as best as possible and reorganized the text. Kindly find the file titled 'Zircon Review Answered Reviewer 1'.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read this manuscript, titled Complex Characteristic of Zircon from Granitoids of the Verkhneurmiysky Massif (Amur Region), with great attention.
In my opinion it is written correctly, but...
The analyzes are conducted adequately to the material.
I have reservations about the map in Fig. 1. The lack of geographic data makes it impossible to locate the area.
I miss correlation diagrams with other zircons of similar rocks. Only Germany is cited, which is not enough. It would be worthwhile to check this data in the boxes with known intruders of this type in the world. Please correct it.
Please check the correctness of the citation.
Author Response
We wish to thank you for your helpful comments in this first round of review. Your remarks provided valuable insights to refine the contents and analysis. We have tried to address the issues raised as best as possible and reorganized the text. Kindly find the file titled 'Zircon Review Answered Reviewer 2'.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is written in a good scientific language, and the approaches and methods of studying substance used by the authors correspond to the world level. Undoubtedly, this article should be published.
However, there are a few minor comments on the article layout.
- Chapter Materials and Methods must be corrected!
In Materials and Methods you should list the methods and approaches used in the research and describe the samples.
A separate chapter should be made a chapter on the geological setting of the study area.
- The list of references should be expanded by mentioning international works. More than half of the references in the List of References are links to Russian-language articles. It is clear that the authors mainly operate on the results of their domestic colleagues. But it is highly desirable for an international journal to cite references to the results of international research, which are known to a wider circle of scientists.
Author Response
We wish to thank you for your helpful comments in this first round of review. Your remarks provided valuable insights to refine the contents and analysis. We have tried to address the issues raised as best as possible and reorganized the text. Kindly find the file titled 'Zircon Review Answered Reviewer 3'.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
see comments in the attached annotated ms
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your assessment of the revised manuscript and your useful suggestions! Indeed, the ideas you gave us were more than just useful, they widened our understanding of the matter.
We tried to consider all your comments. Please find the edited paper draft with all your comments considered and answered. Two major points that we would like to discuss are the following.
- 8. – Thank you for formulating our thoughts better than we do. We use different median values to separate Zrn-Bt and Zrn-Znw into long and short-prismatiс varieties, because we consider them as two different representative samples, characterized by the different number of grains and different scatter values of elongation coefficients.
- 14. – As you suggested, we have added the zircon from Eibenstock to the general comparison of zircon composition from granites of similar genesis from different geographical regions. But we have not added the data of Eibenstock’s zircon bearing granites composition to the diagrams, where we compare bulk chemical analysis of granites quite similar to the Verkhneurmiysky’s one – we find this redundant. Moreover, the values depictured are not normalized as the logarithm scale provides adequate comparison of the element concentrations even when their contents differ by the magnitude of orders.
Many thanks again for the time you put in assessing our paper draft and giving your very helpful suggestions!
Reviewer 2 Report
Well, I see more change in these manuscript, but, STILL in fig1 in the map in geological sketch we no have geographic informations! Ne rivers, no towns no GPS! Why?
Pleace write these informations.
Author Response
Answer: Thank you for your re-valuation of our manuscript. The regional peculiarities of land topography affected the cartographic resources greatly. Towns simply don’t exist in the vicinity of the study area, while rivers are mostly unnamed and customarily considered as creeks. The GPS data were unavailable during the sampling field season, however, this was fully covered by the analyses conducted, so the regional geological patterns were described in full. We hope this explanation gives the picture, especially with regard to the specialization of the Minerals journal. Many thanks again!
