Estimating Magma Crystallization Temperatures Using High Field Strength Elements in Igneous Rocks
John Puffer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "The estimating of magma temperature by using the high field strength ..." by Narges Daneshvar and others is interesting and potentially very important. It is poorly written and in need of considerable language editing, but despite these obvious problems the authors should be encouraged to resubmit after careful revision. The authors have developed a clever new way to estimate crystallization temperatures of a wide range of igneous magmas. The procedure is based on geochemical data that are typically obtained during routine petrologic studies of igneous rocks unlike some of the alternatives that rely on complex technology and expensive equipment. In addition, the authors proposed procedure has other advantages over some of the alternatives and may become widely accepted by petrologists after it has been subjected to the testing that it is likely to receive.
The language edits are far too abundant for me to list so I will only mention a few of the most obvious. Other, more important comments will focus on content problems.
Line 2 – The title should be revised to read "Estimating magma crystallization temperatures using high-field-strength-elements in igneous rocks"
Line 10 – Throughout most of the manuscript estimating "magma temperatures" is described as the objective of the project. However, this leads to considerable confusion. Melting temperatures in the mantle typically differ considerably from intrusion temperatures into the crust and from final solidus crystallization temperatures. This is particularly true of mafic rocks. Partial melting of any source rock involves a range of temperatures as does the crystallization process. The gap between solidus and liquidus temperatures can be considerable. So, the meaning of "magma temperature" can be quite ambiguous. Somewhere early in the introduction this temperature issue should be discussed and "magma temperature" should be replaced by a more restricted alternative such as "solidus magma temperatures" or perhaps "magma crystallization temperatures".
Line 12- replace different with several
Line 16-19 – the two categories that the two equations apply to are best described as basaltic (or mafic) and granitic (See Tables 1 and 2).
Line 20 – Most granites and pegmatites crystallize at temperatures less than 750 C.
Line 31 – replace maintain with mention.
Line 36 – add "compositions" after "oxide"
Line 49 - replace to be with are
Line 53 - Yes "crystallization temperatures". You should be consistent.
Line 60 - replace relation with relationship
Line 61 – replace contains with content, delete "the"
Line 62 – End the sentence with a period after compositions; delete "and the follows to"; Begin a sentence with "We suggest ...".
Line 96 – Explain why G16 is limited to felsic rocks.
Line 186 – replace erroneous with errors
Line 189 – add "of" after Plot
Line 273 – delete the first "the"
Line 274 – Why is there a 0 at the end of the equation? That is not logical.
Line 287 – delete "the"
Line 288 – either replace estimation temperatures with geothermometers or explain "estimation temperatures"
Line 291 – delete the second "the" and add a period.
Line 320 – using "suggestion geothermometer" or "suggestion model" to refer to the new proposed HFSE geothermometers has become a problem. It is just too awkward and needs to be changed particularly if anyone else uses them. I would suggest perhaps the (ZR+Hf)-paraluminous temperature model and the HFSE-peralkaline temperature model.
Line 326 – insert "rocks" at the end
Lines 349-352 – The authors need to slow down here and explain very carefully every detail of how they derived equation 19. This is probably the most important part of the manuscript and will be confusing to most readers without more explanation. If the authors want others to use their equation, they need to convince them that it is based on very sound and complete logic.
Line 365 – Explain "network modifiers"
Line 366 – Explain "open structure chain" and "the sheet is kept apart"
Line 406 – It is not enough to simply say "we developed a new equation". Again, you need to be careful here. This is where readers will look to determine if your equation is credible. Add at least a short paragraph to explain every part of equation 31 including the derivation of 20914 and -31.153. It is important.
Line 459 – insert "the' after "is".
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
First of all, the authors are thankful for the good notes and suggestions. We have done all of the items one by one. Please check them out as follows. The edited parts are shown by track change in the manuscript and referred to below.
The manuscript "The estimating of magma temperature by using the high field strength ..." by Narges Daneshvar and others is interesting and potentially very important. It is poorly written and in need of considerable language editing, but despite these obvious problems the authors should be encouraged to resubmit after careful revision. The authors have developed a clever new way to estimate crystallization temperatures of a wide range of igneous magmas. The procedure is based on geochemical data that are typically obtained during routine petrologic studies of igneous rocks unlike some of the alternatives that rely on complex technology and expensive equipment. In addition, the authors proposed procedure has other advantages over some of the alternatives and may become widely accepted by petrologists after it has been subjected to the testing that it is likely to receive.
The language edits are far too abundant for me to list so I will only mention a few of the most obvious. Other, more important comments will focus on content problems.
Response:
Thank you so much for your positive comment on this work. We also think this work to be much useful to get some information about the magma temperature before the crystallization. Based on the new equations which were suggested here the petrologist can estimate the magma temperature. You made a lot of editing and we used it all in the text. Thanks again for your great support. We tried to improve this version and all parts again were checked and English is now improved. This text includes many formulae and equations and also clearly mixed chemistry, geochemistry, and petrology. We are a bit afraid to ask some English service for editing, and we worry about it. Please check the revised version, if you feel our editing is not so satisfied, we will ask for some English service for the final version.
Line 2 – The title should be revised to read "Estimating magma crystallization temperatures using high-field-strength-elements in igneous rocks"
Response:
Thanks. The title is changed based on your suggestion.
Line 10 – Throughout most of the manuscript estimating "magma temperatures" is described as the objective of the project. However, this leads to considerable confusion. Melting temperatures in the mantle typically differ considerably from intrusion temperatures into the crust and from final solidus crystallization temperatures. This is particularly true of mafic rocks. Partial melting of any source rock involves a range of temperatures as does the crystallization process. The gap between solidus and liquidus temperatures can be considerable. So, the meaning of "magma temperature" can be quite ambiguous. Somewhere early in the introduction this temperature issue should be discussed and "magma temperature" should be replaced by a more restricted alternative such as "solidus magma temperatures" or perhaps "magma crystallization temperatures".
Response:
Thanks for your good suggestion. Yes, it is true! Actually, it is difficult to estimate the initiation of magma temperature. The present equations are much more consistent with magma composition before the crystallization or initiation of the crystallization. Therefore, to consider this comment we replaced it with the magma crystallization temperatures. Please check the revised manuscript.
Line 12- replace different with several
Response:
It was replaced. Please check it out in line 13 in the revised version.
Line 16-19 – the two categories that the two equations apply to are best described as basaltic (or mafic) and granitic (See Tables 1 and 2).
Response:
Thanks for your good comment. Well, we calculated the temperature based on two equations of the last update of Tzr by Shao (2020) which restricted metaluminous to peraluminous and peralkaline to alkaline rocks. So, we categorized two groups based on M composition. In addition, the suggested equations work well from the mafic to the felsic for all alkaline rocks. For non-alkaline rocks, it works with higher SiO2, not for the mafic rocks. Non-alkaline mafic rocks due to the low REEs and HFSE need t to consider some more components. Actually, some experimental data need it.
Line 20 – Most granites and pegmatites crystallize at temperatures less than 750 C.
Response:
Thanks for your good comment. Yes, it is true, and actually, our aim is magma before crystallization. In this case, we consider the temperature higher than 750C. We calculated the temperatures based on the last update revised zircon saturation models by Shao (2020) which were developed for temperatures from 750 to 1400 °C, and included a larger range of compositions from mafic to felsic rocks (peralkaline to peraluminous). So, to reach the best estimation temperature, the limitation was kept.
Line 31 – replace maintain with mention.
Response:
It was replaced. Please check it out in line 31 in the revised version.
Line 36 – add "compositions" after "oxide"
Response:
It was added. Please check it out in line 36 in revised version.
Line 49 - replace to be with are
Response:
It was replaced. Please check it out in line 40 in revised version.
Line 53 - Yes "crystallization temperatures". You should be consistent.
Response:
Thanks. all are replaced by magma crystallization temperature.
Line 60 - replace relation with relationship
Response:
It was replaced. Please check it out in line 62 in revised version.
Line 61 – replace contains with content, delete "the"
Response:
These corrections were done. Please check it out in line 63 in the revised version.
Line 62 – End the sentence with a period after compositions; delete "and the follows to"; Begin a sentence with "We suggest ...".
Response:
These corrections were done. Please check it out in line 65in the revised version.
Line 96 – Explain why G16 is limited to felsic rocks.
Response:
Thanks. The limitation of the Zr saturation temperature is well descripted in several compositions in the manuscript. Please check the revised manuscript in lines120-150.
Line 186 – replace erroneous with errors
Response:
It was replaced. Please check it out in line 202 in the revised version.
Line 189 – add "of" after Plot
Response:
It was added. Please check it out in line 205 in the revised version.
Line 273 – delete the first "the"
Response:
It was deleted. Please check it out in line 292 in the revised version.
Line 274 – Why is there a 0 at the end of the equation? That is not logical.
Response:
It was corrected. Please check it out in line 277 in the revised version.
Line 287 – delete "the"
Response:
It was deleted. Please check it out in line 293 in the revised version.
Line 288 – either replace estimation temperatures with geothermometers or explain "estimation temperatures"
Response:
It was replaced. Please check it out in line 308 in the revised version.
Line 291 – delete the second "the" and add a period.
Response:
Please check it out in line 313 in the revised version.
Line 320 – using "suggestion geothermometer" or "suggestion model" to refer to the new proposed HFSE geothermometers has become a problem. It is just too awkward and needs to be changed particularly if anyone else uses them. I would suggest perhaps the (ZR+Hf)-paraluminous temperature model and the HFSE-peralkaline temperature model.
Response:
Thanks. please check lines 345-351-400 in the revised version. It was added based on your suggestion
Line 326 – insert "rocks" at the end
Response:
It was added. Please check it out in line 350.
Lines 349-352 – The authors need to slow down here and explain very carefully every detail of how they derived equation 19. This is probably the most important part of the manuscript and will be confusing to most readers without more explanation. If the authors want others to use their equation, they need to convince them that it is based on very sound and complete logic.
Response:
It was added. Please check it out in lines 357-362 in a revised version The concentration of Zr and Hf in the whole rock in the metaluminous to the peraluminous rocks shows a good correlation with the main components of the S20-1 and magma crystallization temperature (Equations 14-17). Therefore, we tried to obtain an equation based on Zr-Hf abundances in the whole rock data in the metaluminous to the peraluminous rocks based on a linear correlation between the lnCZr (ppm)+lnCHf (ppm) and temperature. Therefore, finally, by fitting the 915 samples, we proposed a temperature model in the metaluminous to the peraluminous rocks by using the abundances of the Zr and Hf in the whole rocks.
Line 365 – Explain "network modifiers"
Response:
Thanks. it is added to the revised manuscript. Please check it out in lines 403-404 in the revised version.
Line 366 – Explain "open structure chain" and "the sheet is kept apart"
Response:
It is added to the revised manuscript. Please check it out in lines 405-406.
Line 406 – It is not enough to simply say "we developed a new equation". Again, you need to be careful here. This is where readers will look to determine if your equation is credible. Add at least a short paragraph to explain every part of equation 31 including the derivation of 20914 and -31.153. It is important.
Response:
It was added. Please check it out in lines 455-464 in the revised version
Line 459 – insert "the' after "is
Response:
It was added. Please check it out in line 514 in the revised version.
Thanks again for your great comments.
TRANSLATE with x English| Arabic | Hebrew | Polish |
| Bulgarian | Hindi | Portuguese |
| Catalan | Hmong Daw | Romanian |
| Chinese Simplified | Hungarian | Russian |
| Chinese Traditional | Indonesian | Slovak |
| Czech | Italian | Slovenian |
| Danish | Japanese | Spanish |
| Dutch | Klingon | Swedish |
| English | Korean | Thai |
| Estonian | Latvian | Turkish |
| Finnish | Lithuanian | Ukrainian |
| French | Malay | Urdu |
| German | Maltese | Vietnamese |
| Greek | Norwegian | Welsh |
| Haitian Creole | Persian |
Reviewer 2 Report
Magma temperatures are important parameters to know the magmatic thermal evolution of magmas, and thus petrogenesis. The authors develop a new convenient method to calculate the temperature of magmas by using the whole-rock concentrations of HFSEs. It intends to help geologists to know the petrogenesis of igneous rocks. I think it is meaningful.
I have some concerns on the contents of this paper.
Major concerns:
Whole trace elements can be influenced by crystal cumulates which are preferable for some specific trace elements. I agree with the methods to calculate magma temperatures using whole-rock HFSEs if the magmatic rocks have bulk-rock melt-like compositions. The authors compiled 984 samples, but the discussions concerning whether these samples contain crystal cumulates or have melt-like compositions are absent. Thus, samples probably containing crystal cumulates were not eliminated. I am not sure whether this procedure has critical influence on the establishment of the HFSE-based methods.
Line 185-187: Here presented that the thermometry by Watson and Harrison has some erroneous. I would like to see how it is erroneous, and if possible, please briefly show in this paper.
Line 318-319: How to define highly evolved magma? Using SiO2 or other parameters? This paper means that highly evolved magma is ignored in the calculation using Th and U or is entirely ignored in the whole paper?
Minor concerns:
Line 61: contains? Or containing
Line 229: contains? Or containing
Line 231: >%99 ? or >99 %
Line 274: T(°C) =505.94 (Zr/TiO2)0, what does the “0” mean in the end?
Line 310: Element partition coefficients are related to many factors, such as melt compositions, crystal fractionation, temperature and pressure, etc. I am not sure whether it is propriate to directly relate to magma temperature here.
Line 354: how do understand <750 to <1400?
Line 590: Lack Journal name
Line 618: repeated titles.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
The authors gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of our manuscript. We put the answer to any suggestions and questions below and it shows by track change in the manuscript
Magma temperatures are important parameters to know the magmatic thermal evolution of magmas, and thus petrogenesis. The authors develop a new convenient method to calculate the temperature of magmas by using the whole-rock concentrations of HFSEs. It intends to help geologists to know the petrogenesis of igneous rocks. I think it is meaningful.
I have some concerns on the contents of this paper.
Major concerns:
Whole trace elements can be influenced by crystal cumulates which are preferable for some specific trace elements. I agree with the methods to calculate magma temperatures using whole-rock HFSEs if the magmatic rocks have bulk-rock melt-like compositions. The authors compiled 984 samples, but the discussions concerning whether these samples contain crystal cumulates or have melt-like compositions are absent. Thus, samples probably containing crystal cumulates were not eliminated. I am not sure whether this procedure has critical influence on the establishment of the HFSE-based methods.
Response:
Thanks a lot for your great comments. It is true. We used different types of rocks for example basalt to granite and gabbro. Our aim is, how to can estimate the origin magma temperature before crystallization. We also highlighted the inability of these equations for highly evolved samples and late-stage magma crystallization such as Pegmatites which are the result of the magma differentiation. The concertation of the HFSE elements has too much change in highly evolved rocks and differentiated. Therefore, the estimated temperature does not show the magma temperature. In this case, before using these equations Paragraphically and petrological information need it.
Line 185-187: Here presented that the thermometry by Watson and Harrison has some erroneous. I would like to see how it is erroneous, and if possible, please briefly show in this paper.
Response:
Thank you very much. In the introduction part, we briefly present the different methods for thermometry in crystallization magma and also discuss some errors based on the previous works. Please check it out in lines 50-56 in the revised manuscript.
Line 318-319: How to define highly evolved magma? Using SiO2 or other parameters? This paper means that highly evolved magma is ignored in the calculation using Th and U or is entirely ignored in the whole paper?
Response:
Thanks for your good comment. In this manuscript, highly evolved magma is ignored and we do not discuss it. Because we calculate the temperature based on updated revised zircon saturation models by Shao (2020) and the highly evolved magma, the Zr content in the late crystallized rocks is higher than that in ZrMagma, which causes the overestimation of TZrwhich is mentioned in the revised manuscript in line 142-150.
Minor concerns:
Line 61: contains? Or containing
Response:
It was modified by Reviewer 1 to content. Please check it out in line 62 in the revised version.
Line 229: contains? Or containing
Response:
It was replaced. Please check it out in line 232 in the revised version.
Line 231: >%99 ? or >99 %
Response:
It was corrected. Please check it out in line 250 in the revised version.
Line 274: T(°C) =505.94 (Zr/TiO2)0, what does the “0” mean in the end?
Response:
It was deleted. Please check it out in line 277in the revised version.
Line 310: Element partition coefficients are related to many factors, such as melt compositions, crystal fractionation, temperature and pressure, etc. I am not sure whether it is propriate to directly relate to magma temperature here.
Response:
Yes, it is completely true. In this case, we didn’t consider only 1-2 single elements to estimate the temperature. We examined most of the major oxides and trace elements and finally, we found a few elements would be much useful and can give us some information about the magma temperature, which we used that in our equation. Our equation just comes for estimation, not for exactly magma temperature.
Line 354: how do understand <750 to <1400?
Response:
Thanks. in this manuscript we calculated temperature based on the last update of TZr Shao (2020) and these two equations is restricted to 750-1400 degree centigrade and less than this range has erroneous so we kept the limitation.
Line 590: Lack Journal name
Response:
It was added please check it out in line 656 in the revised version.
Line 618: repeated titles.
Response:
It was corrected. please check it out in line 689 in the revised version.
Thank you so much for the comments and suggestions!.
TRANSLATE with x English| Arabic | Hebrew | Polish |
| Bulgarian | Hindi | Portuguese |
| Catalan | Hmong Daw | Romanian |
| Chinese Simplified | Hungarian | Russian |
| Chinese Traditional | Indonesian | Slovak |
| Czech | Italian | Slovenian |
| Danish | Japanese | Spanish |
| Dutch | Klingon | Swedish |
| English | Korean | Thai |
| Estonian | Latvian | Turkish |
| Finnish | Lithuanian | Ukrainian |
| French | Malay | Urdu |
| German | Maltese | Vietnamese |
| Greek | Norwegian | Welsh |
| Haitian Creole | Persian |
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version of the manuscript written by Narges Daneshvar and others is an improvement of an already important, interesting, and useful draft. It is clever and will be commonly cited by petrologists that use this new method to estimate crystallization temperatures. Nice work!
