Regional Geochemical Anomaly Identification Based on Multiple-Point Geostatistical Simulation and Local Singularity Analysis—A Case Study in Mila Mountain Region, Southern Tibet
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript present a case study of a geostatistics simulation of chemical data set. The authors have demonstrated a good understanding of the essence of the problem of finding weak anomalies from geophysical data. Direct sampling algorithm and local singularity analysis to estimate cooper anomalies is applied. Various smoothing techniques of geological data are discussed.
Were there other geophysical methods (seismic, electrical prospecting) used in addition to geochemical exploration of the deposit? If so, it is worth mentioning it. This would increase the reliability of the results obtained.
Author Response
Point 1: Were there other geophysical methods (seismic, electrical prospecting) used in addition to geochemical exploration of the deposit? If so, it is worth mentioning it. This would increase the reliability of the results obtained.
Response 1: This is an absolutely insightful advice. I agree that the geophysical methods will improve the reliability of the results. However, the geophysical data is difficult to collect in this area, we will add the geophysical data analysis in other research area in the near future.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors propose to use the Direct Sampling Algorithm and Local Singularity Analysis methods to delineate geochemical distribution patterns and evaluate the uncertainty of geochemical anomalies.
The feasibility of these methods is verified by a case study of estimating the uncertainty of copper anomalies based on stream sediments data in the Mila Mountain Integrated Exploration Area in Tibet.
I find the research design appropriate. The description of the methods used in Section 2 (Methodology) needs improvement. It is quite brief, and without a better explanation the readers will need to study the cited literature to understand the methods. The results (Section 4) are clearly presented, but it will be necessary to improve the quality of the figures. The conclusions (Section 5) follow from the results well. Therefore, I propose to accept this article after minor revision.
More specific feedback
- In Figure 11a, I recommend adding a legend, similarly to the reference [41] (Figure 2), and expand the "Singularity Index Quantiles" axis to improve readability.
- Readability of Figure 13 needs to be improved ("Faults", "Intrusion Rock" or city names cannot be found it in the figure at all).
- It is necessary to improve the quality of Figures 2 to 12 to improve readability (or to enlarge them, especially Figures 7 and 8).
- Line 240 of the text refers to reference [58], but this reference is not in the bibliography.
- Similarly, line 260 of the text refers to reference [59], but this reference is not in the bibliography.
- A dot is missing at the end of line 101.
- On line 106, replace reference "(Mariethoz, Renard, et al. 2010)" by [28], to confine to a unified reference style.
- In Figure 1 (Section 2.1) I recommend correcting the format of the indexes (e.g. 1 in x1 should be a subindex, similarly other symbols).
Author Response
Point 1: The description of the methods used in Section 2 (Methodology) needs improvement. It is quite brief, and without a better explanation the readers will need to study the cited literature to understand the methods.
Response 1: Thanks for the suggestion. In order to facilitate readers to well understand the details of the algorithms, the algorithm procedure has been added in the manuscript as Table 1. Please refer to lines 108-110.
Point 2: The results (Section 4) are clearly presented, but it will be necessary to improve the quality of the figures.
Response 2: Thanks for your meticulous work, we have improved the quality of all the mentioned figures.
Specific comments:
- In Figure 11a, I recommend adding a legend, similarly to the reference [41] (Figure 2), and expand the "Singularity Index Quantiles" axis to improve readability.
Re: We have added the legend of Figure 11a, and the range of 1.9-2.0 in the "Singularity Index Quantiles" axis has been expand for clearly showing the residual fitting curve. Please refer to line 292.
- Readability of Figure 13 needs to be improved ("Faults", "Intrusion Rock" or city names cannot be found it in the figure at all).
Re: Figure 13 has been revised for improving the readability. Please refer to line 308.
- It is necessary to improve the quality of Figures 2 to 12 to improve readability (or to enlarge them, especially Figures 7 and 8).
Re: All the figures have been revised according to this comment. In particular, Figure 7 and Figure 8 have been re-arranged so that the content of the figure could be read clearly.
- Line 240 of the text refers to reference [58], but this reference is not in the bibliography.
Similarly, line 260 of the text refers to reference [59], but this reference is not in the bibliography.
Re: We are sorry for the negligence. The references have been added in the bibliography. Please refer to 433-436.
- A dot is missing at the end of line 101.
Re: Thanks for your meticulous work, we have revised it. Please refer to line 101.
- On line 106, replace reference "(Mariethoz, Renard, et al. 2010)" by [28], to confine to a unified reference style.
Re: Thanks for your meticulous work, we have revised it. Please refer to line 106.
- In Figure 1 (Section 2.1) I recommend correcting the format of the indexes (e.g. 1 in x1 should be a subindex, similarly other symbols).
Re: We have revised the format of the indexes. Please refer to line 123.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
