Next Article in Journal
Influence of Layered Angle on Dynamic Characteristics of Backfill under Impact Loading
Previous Article in Journal
Naryn-Gol Creek Sapphire Placer Deposit, Buryatia, Russia
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Reappraising the Provenance of Early Neoproterozoic Strata in the Southern–Southeastern North China Craton and Its Implication for Paleogeographic Reconstruction

Minerals 2022, 12(5), 510; https://doi.org/10.3390/min12050510
by Fengbo Sun 1, Peng Peng 2, Deshun Zheng 1,* and Pengfei Zuo 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Minerals 2022, 12(5), 510; https://doi.org/10.3390/min12050510
Submission received: 30 March 2022 / Revised: 15 April 2022 / Accepted: 18 April 2022 / Published: 20 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Geochemistry and Geochronology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor,
Sun et al. provide a comprehensive, clear, and well-written view of the sandstone provenance of Early Neoproterozoic Sangwon and Wufoshan groups in North China Craton (NCC) and provides new constraints concerning the maximum depositional age of Sangwon Supergroup and Wufoshan Group. Their new insights were based on U-Pb (LA-ICP-MS) data and a statistical approach that we could assume is an excellent approach based on the size of the dataset. If, on the one hand, these results have local relevance, on the other hand, their approach regarding paleocontinental reconstruction shows relevance to the worldwide audience. Their data provide new insights into the early Neoproterozoic configuration of North China Craton and Congo – São Francisco Cratons. The correlation was appropriately made, and the ԐHf(t) was used to improve the reliability of their interpretations. The geological approach is robust, and the manuscript was well connected using a robust group of references from the Congo-São Francisco Cratons and NCC. Complementary, they discussed the other paleocontinental configuration possibilities for the Early Neoproterozoic and robustly discussed their mismatches.

I carefully evaluated the entire manuscript and found a few minor typos that I marked along with the pdf document (see attached file). I also provided here the typo lines. Finally, regarding the text structure, the manuscript flows well, the ideas are generally well connected as we expect from a high-quality manuscript, and the figures have the quality required. Based on these considerations, I recommend accepting de manuscript with only minor typos corrections.

Regarding the maximum depositional age for Sangwon Supergroup (1005±72 Ma), it was based only on one zircon; it is well known that regarding the geotectonic environment of the sedimentary deposits, finding the syn-depositional zircons is a hard task or even not possible due to the distance from the accretionary areas (Cawood et al., 2012). However, the presence of one zircon grain, even being only one single grain, could justify an effort to find more grains and increase the robustness of this interpretation (This comment is addressed for future studies).

I have only a few minor comments here:

Minor topics

Figure 2 – It may be important to provide the Reported Sample references.

Only a few minor typos issues need to be fixed

Line 27 – add “,” after Siberia.

Line 52 – compring – replace to: comprising

Line 73 – juxposed – replace to: juxtaposed

Line 135 – Ssotopes – replace to: Isotopes

Line 186 – arerounded – replace to: are rounded

Line 229 – detrotal – replace to: detrital

Line 233 – Superegroup – replace to: Supergroup

Line 276 – e.g. – replace to: e.g.,

Line 302 – events[79, 80]. – replace to: events [79,80].

Line 331 – North Qinling Terrane(NQT) – Replace to: North Qinling Terrane (NQT)

Line 332 - And the post-collisional – Replace to: The post-collisional

Line 333 – succeeded by mountain collapse – I believe that orogenic collapse could be more appropriate.

Line 341 - Peng et al [40, 81, 101] – replace to: Peng et al. [40, 81, 101]

Line 344 - constraints[15, 23, 86], - replace to: constraints [15, 23, 86],

Line 349 - shapes[96] – replace to: shapes [96]  

Line 358 - 1.38–1.33 and – replace to: 1.38–1.33, and

Please use the same pattern for the εHf(t), it is presented in the text in several different ways like ε Hf (t), εHf (t). I recommend the use of “εHf(t)”.

All of these typos were marked in the PDF file attached.

 

Best regards. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is an interesting study focusing on North China Craton (NCC),  for the the palaeogeographic reconstruction of the supercontinent Rodinia. This was based on a combination of U-Pb ages and Hf isotopic values, published and new data analysed in this study, used in conjunction with stratigraphic and tectonic evidences. The study concludes that NCC was connected to southwest Congo at ~ 0.92 Ma and an intracratonic rift setting existed in the basins along the southern NCC during that time. Some zircon grains  from these basins are derived from NCC as well as the then connected Congo Craton.

The results are very interesting and there are lot of age data to substantiate the findings, that have been integrated with other geological evidences. However, I found the presentation very complicated and was often lost with all the age data presented. If they could be conveyed in a more reader friendly way (e.g. in the form of tables, figures etc) that would be most useful. Even for figure 2 (stratigraphy), please modify and present in a way with labels that can be related to the text. Otherwise, a lot of unwanted information is not helping!

Further comments can be found with the file attached here.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop