Provenance, Depositional Environment, and Paleoclimatic Conditions of a Near-Source Fan Delta: A Case Study of the Permian Jiamuhe Formation in the Shawan Sag, Junggar Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The suggestions for the manuscript is mentioned in the attached annotated file. Some of the key areas of revision are: 

1. Abstract section: Line 16-18: incomplete and vague statement. plz revise the statement by defining what kind of potential it has.

2. Abstr4act section: Line 19: what is the significance of zones and how it is useful for provenance.

3. Abstract section: objective of the study are not clearly defined in the abstract section.

4. Abstract section: Line 24-27: results are not well-presented in the abstract section.

5. revise the keywords by deleting the keyword "depositional environment" and including the following keywords: heavy mineral analysis, rare earth elements, petrographic data.

6. start the introduction with some interesting statements related to importance and significance of provenance and elemental distribution of sediments.

7. Introduction section: problem statement is defined but enlist the aims and objectives of the study based on the problem statement.

8. Figure 1 should include a regional map of China and redraw a stratigraphic chart with various colors and highlight the stratigraphic formation of your study.

9. sub-section 4.1.2: Petrography: conglomerate is not a textural term used. please check the rock name should not be used for textural classification of petrography.

10: Figure 4: Petrographic images are not labeled clearly to show the various mineral constituents.

11. Split the figure 12 into two separate figures to show a clear distribution of cores and textural details.

12. Figure 13: scale of the field images is not well-defined. also label the observed sedimentary characteristics.

13. Figure 18: Re-draw the figure for clarity.

14. References: check the format of references especially the list of authors in the bibliography.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

minor revisions of language

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers, comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Provenance, Depositional Environment, and Palaeoclimatic of the Near-Source Fan Delta: A Case Study of the Permian Jiamuhe Formation in the Shawan Sag, Junggar Basin” (ID: minerals-2567417). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have added some materials. So, it took a long time for correcting the manuscript. We have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in track in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments are as following:

Responds to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments:

Reviewer’s 1

1. Abstract section: Line 16-18: incomplete and vague statement. plz revise the statement by defining what kind of potential it has.

Response: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have rewritten the Line 16-18. Science the provenance, the sedimentary system, and the distribution of sandbodies are unclear, the great potential is limiting for the oil and gas exploration.

2. Abstract section: Line 19: what is the significance of zones and how it is useful for provenance.

Response: zones means regions. This sentence is intended to show that under a provenance system, it can be further divided into four provenance regions.  Because the clastic composition, REES, and heavy mineral analysis of the four zones districts are different. We have rewritten this sentence: The provenance is characterized by “a main provenance system, and four provenance zones,”.

3. Abstract section: objective of the study is not clearly defined in the abstract section.

Response: The research results further confirm that there are differences in mineral composition in th same provenance area, and provided geological basis for the fine sedimentary facies characterization and favorable zone prediction in this area.

4. Abstract section: Line 24-27: results are not well-presented in the abstract section.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have supplemented content: Furthermore, Redox Conditions and Palaeoclimatic based on trace elements (Th/U, V/ (V + Ni), V/Cr, Cu/Zn, Sr/Ba, Sr/Cu) suggest a weak reduction, semi-humid and semi-dry conditions of the Jiamuhe Fm. These conditions are also supported by mudstone color, plant fossils. The tectonic setting belongs to acid island arc area, based on discrimination diagram of trace element La-Th-SC, and criteria values of La, Ce, ΣREE, L/H, La/Yb, and (La/Yb)N.

5. revise the keywords by deleting the keyword "depositional environment" and including the following keywords: heavy mineral analysis, rare earth elements, petrographic data.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

6. start the introduction with some interesting statements related to importance and significance of provenance and elemental distribution of sediments.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice. Please see the specific information on section “Introduction”

7. Introduction section: problem statement is defined but enlist the aims and objectives of the study based on the problem statement.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have supplemented content: In that sense, the present study tries to fill a geological and palaeoenvironment gap pro-posing an overview of Jiamuhe Fm, based on the provenance, sedimentological, redox conditions and palaeoclimatic analysis of the Jiamuhe Fm.

8. Figure 1 should include a regional map of China and redraw a stratigraphic chart with various colors and highlight the stratigraphic formation of your study.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

9. sub-section 4.1.2: Petrography: conglomerate is not a textural term used. please check the rock name should not be used for textural classification of petrography.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we use coarse grained instead of conglomerate.

10: Figure 4: Petrographic images are not labeled clearly to show the various mineral constituents.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

11. Split the figure 12 into two separate figures to show a clear distribution of cores and textural details.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

12. Figure 13: scale of the field images is not well-defined. also label the observed sedimentary characteristics.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

13. Figure 18: Re-draw the figure for clarity.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

14. References: check the format of references especially the list of authors in the bibliography.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes which included the details, grammar aspect, and figures in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting. There are lots of figures and tables which describe the presented subject. However, the paper needs to be corrected and improved to make it more clear. The comments I presented below.

 

1.      Introduction Chapter is a little bit general. Authors mention in Abstract (lines 16-18) and Introduction Chapter (lines 51-54) the oil and gas deposits that are in the research area. Are the results important for determination the shape of oil and gas deposits and the genesis of deposits or the purpose of the study is only improving understanding of entire denudation-transport-deposition process on the western slope of the Shawan Sag? In Abstract Authors tell more about oil and gas deposits and signification of distribution of sandbodies which is unclear and cause the problem with oil and gas deposits exploration. However in Introduction the Authors do not develop this problem. Therefore, it seems that the article is only scientific in nature. Although the Authors included in manuscript a lot of data of practical importance. So that in the Introduction Chapter, Authors should specify the information on oil and gas deposits included in the Abstract.

2.      The Chapter 3. Dataset and Methods should be devided into two separate chapters: Methods and Dataset. It appears that the Tables 1 and 2 include at least partially the results of Authors research. Therefore they should be seperate from Methods Chapter and post in individual chapter or in Results Chapter. However, I leave it to the Authors' decision.

3.      Chapter 4.1.2. Petrography- In the caption of Fig. 4, in the case of microscopic photographs there is no information that the photos were taken with crossed nicoles.

4.      The Conclusions Chapter is very general. It is rather a short summary of the Authors' research results posted in three points than conclusions. But there is no real conclusions. It should be developed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers, comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Provenance, Depositional Environment, and Palaeoclimatic of the Near-Source Fan Delta: A Case Study of the Permian Jiamuhe Formation in the Shawan Sag, Junggar Basin” (ID: minerals-2567417). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have added some materials. So, it took a long time for correcting the manuscript. We have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in track in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments are as following:

Responds to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments:

Reviewer 2

The article is interesting. There are lots of figures and tables which describe the presented subject. However, the paper needs to be corrected and improved to make it clearer. The comments I presented below. 

1. Introduction Chapter is a little bit general. Authors mention in Abstract (lines 16-18) and Introduction Chapter (lines 51-54) the oil and gas deposits that are in the research area. Are the results important for determination the shape of oil and gas deposits and the genesis of deposits or the purpose of the study is only improving understanding of entire denudation-transport-deposition process on the western slope of the Shawan Sag? In Abstract Authors tell more about oil and gas deposits and signification of distribution of sandbodies which is unclear and cause the problem with oil and gas deposits exploration. However, in Introduction the Authors do not develop this problem. Therefore, it seems that the article is only scientific in nature. Although the Authors included in manuscript a lot of data of practical importance. So that in the Introduction Chapter, Authors should specify the information on oil and gas deposits included in the Abstract.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice. Please see the specific information on section “Abstract”

2. The Chapter 3. Dataset and Methods should be divided into two separate chapters: Methods and Dataset. It appears that the Tables 1 and 2 include at least partially the results of Authors research. Therefore, they should be separate from Methods Chapter and post in individual chapter or in Results Chapter. However, I leave it to the Authors' decision.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, it fits better in the dataset section. The reason is as follows: Table1 and Table 2 are the data presentation, and in other section are the results obtained by using these two tables.

3. Chapter 4.1.2. Petrography- In the caption of Fig. 4, in the case of microscopic photographs there is no information that the photos were taken with crossed nicoles.

Response: The reviewer read it very carefully. It is my mistake, I updated the image and didn’t update the text. We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

4. The Conclusions Chapter is very general. It is rather a short summary of the Authors' research results posted in three points than conclusions. But there are no real conclusions. It should be developed.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice. Please see the specific information on section 6 “Conclusions.”

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes which included the details, grammar aspect, and figures in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Replace the word "Paleoclimatic" in the title of the manuscript with "Paleoclimatic conditions".

include a keyword: "Permian sediments" and replace the "Paleoclimatic" with "Paleoclimate".

Legends of Figure 1 shows a black star for the outcrop point but it is not clear on the map where is the outcrop point. check the legends of the figure.

Check the text color of the labeling in Figure 4 and use the visible and more clear color for text labels.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers, comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Provenance, Depositional Environment, and Palaeoclimatic of the Near-Source Fan Delta: A Case Study of the Permian Jiamuhe Formation in the Shawan Sag, Junggar Basin” (ID: minerals-2567417). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have added some materials. So, it took a long time for correcting the manuscript. We have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in track in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments are as following:

Responds to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments:

Reviewer’s 1

Response: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion,

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

 

1．Replace the word "Paleoclimatic" in the title of the manuscript with "Paleoclimatic conditions".include a keyword: "Permian sediments" and replace the "Paleoclimatic" with "Paleoclimate".

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

2.Legends of Figure 1 shows a black star for the outcrop point but it is not clear on the map where is the outcrop point. check the legends of the figure.

Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice. We have further enlarged the legend.

3.Check the text color of the labeling in Figure 4 and use the visible and more clear color for text labels.

 Response: We have revised it according to reviewer’s advice.

4.Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the

manuscript.

 Response: Yes，we have checked all the references.

5. Any revisions to the manuscript should be highlighted, such that any

changes can be easily reviewed by editors and reviewers.

 Response: Yes, we use the revision mode, and the editors and reviewers can see the revision trace.

   We have checked the full text of spelling and formatting.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx