Magnetic Inversion and Regional Tectonics of the Dabie Orogen

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents the results of the 3D magnetization distribution of the lithosphere in the Dabie orogen and analyzes the tectonic processes related to the formation of magnetic sources. The study provides evidence for the suture line position of the plate subduction at the deep lithosphere and displays certain indications of mineralization activities in the middle-lower Yangtze Valley metallogenic belt. Your paper seems interesting and provides some findings and novel observations. To make it appropriate for publication, you need to make some modifications as follows:

1. The inversion method involves a depth-weighting function. What is the specific form and value of the depth-weighting factor? Is the parameter the same as the actual application?

2. The noise signal is mentioned in the model inversion section. What noise is it?

3. In order to observe the abnormal body more clearly, different sections of the same result should share the same color bar (such as Fig. 7 and Fig. 8).

4. Magnetic anomalies can be observed in the middle-lower Yangtze Valley metallogenic belt, but there are no anomalies near the surface (Fig. 6a). Why?

5. In the manuscript, proper nouns should be capitalized, such as 3d, pd, etc.

6. It is advised to cite some newest references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The objective of this paper is to implement magnetic inversion, based on the three-component magnetic anomalies, resulting in the regional tectonics study of the Dabie Orogen.

This is an interesting and well-structured paper. All necessary sections (Introduction, Methodology and synthetic model analysis, Lithospheric magnetic field, Discussion regarding the validity of the magnetic sources’ depth, 3-D magnetization inversion results and discussion, Tectonic processes related to the formations of the magnetic sources, Conclusions) have been considered. Moreover, the “Methodology and synthetic model analysis” and “Lithospheric magnetic field” sections are divided into sub-sections, providing additional details. Furthermore, all Figures are consistent with the analysis provided in the manuscript. Regarding the mathematical part, included in the “Inversion method” sub-section, it is valid, while the analytical equations are provided. However, some changes should be performed to improve the paper overall. In particular:

Line 54: Before this line, a paragraph should be added, related to palaeomagnetism, which is directly associated to the lithospheric magnetic field. Typical papers, related to palaeomagnetism, in which significant information can be obtained, are the following: 1. Duermeijer, C. E., Nyst, M., Meijer, P. Th., Langereis, C. G., & Spakman, W. (2000). Neogene evolution of the Aegean arc: paleomagnetic and geodetic evidence for a rapid and young rotation phase. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 176(3–4), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(00)00023-6, 2. Kaymakcı, N., Langereis, C., Özkaptan, M., Özacar, A. A., Gülyüz, E., Uzel, B., & Sözbilir, H. (2018). Paleomagnetic evidence for upper plate response to a STEP fault, SW Anatolia. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 498, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2018.06.022, 3. Lazos, I., Sboras, S., Chousianitis, K., Kondopoulou, D., Pikridas, C., Bitharis, S., & Pavlides, S. (2022). Temporal evolution of crustal rotation in the Aegean region based on primary geodetically-derived results and palaeomagnetism. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica, 57(2), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-022-00379-3, 4. van Hinsbergen, D. J. J., Dekkers, M. J., Bozkurt, E., & Koopman, M. (2010). Exhumation with a twist: Paleomagnetic constraints on the evolution of the Menderes metamorphic core complex, western Turkey. Tectonics, 29(3), TC3009. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009TC002596. Please, apply.

Line 104: At the end of the last paragraph of the “Introduction” section, the paper objectives should be clearly highlighted. Please, apply.

Lines 190-191: The series of metamorphic units bounded by faults should be further analyzed. Maybe, a tectonostratigraphic column could be added. Please, apply.

Lines 274-275: Please, provide a more detailed description in the Figure 7 caption.

Lines 277-278: Please, provide a more detailed description in the Figure 8 caption.

Line 415: The “Conclusions” section should be modified. In the current form, it resembles an abstract rather than conclusions. This section should be comprehensive, while the major findings of the paper should be highlighted. Maybe, numbering of the concluding remarks could be performed. Please, apply.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf