Maturity Matters in Provenance Analysis: Mineralogical Differences Explained by Sediment Transport from Fennoscandian and Variscan Sources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Given that zircon U-Pb dating is the vital method for this paper, the significance for the zircon ages is a key for understanding the age difference. The authors checked the zircon grains using SEM (Line 198-200), however, they didn't show any SEM pictures in the paper. I think the representative  SEM pictures are necessary. These pictures can tell us something ahout zircon morphology and structure, e.g., shape, zoning, and even inclusions. 

2. Because the zircons in sedimentary rocks generally have complex rim-mantle-core structure, if possible, the Cl images are also needed. The authors must tell us where the laser spot located in the zircon, e.g., in magmatic zircon with oscillatory zoning, or in metamorphic or hydrothermal zircon zoning. If the Cl images will not be available, the authors should tell us  the laser spot located either in the zircon core or in the rim at least. The ages collected from different locations in zircon grains indicate varied geological events, which probably influences the age interpretation.

Author Response

Thanks for your good suggestions that have helped improve our manuscript.

Please see our point-by-point response in the attached file.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting article that has local/regional importance.

The methodology and procedures are correct for the objectives sought and, at the same time, sufficient references from previous works are provided for a correct discussion of the results obtained.

Therefore, I only suggest a series of questions, which if taken into account, will improve the clarity of the different sections of the work.

- It is better that in an introductory section no information is given about the results obtained in the work. Therefore, I suggest that lines 40 to 45 be removed from the introduction.

- Similarly, discussion should not be held on aspects that have not yet been developed in depth. Therefore, lines 48 to 52 should be removed from the introduction.

- Please add some bibliographic references at the end of line 90 of those previous works that are mentioned in that sentence.

- Please add longitude and latitude coordinates on the map 1a.

Author Response

Thanks for your good suggestions that have helped improve our manuscript.

Please see our point-by-point response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I am glad to see a fantastic paper dedicated to determining the supply area based on U-Pb zircon dating. The authors used a lot of analysis to construct the conclusions. However, all investigation concludes with one question: How were the investigated Zr crystals selected for analysing? Did the authors check the internal texture (e.g. by CL)? The statistical age conclusions are done correctly, but having characterised the texture in some grains (populations), they could obtain more valuable data.

1. The citation style is not dedicated to the journal. Please, change it.
2. Use dots instead of commas in table 1.
3. Add one figure dedicated to the documentation of the Zr in populations (e.g., morphology, texture in BSE).

Author Response

Thanks for your good suggestions that have helped improve our manuscript.

Please see our point-by-point response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript by Mette Olivarius et al.: Maturity matters in provenance analysis: spatiotemporal mineralogical differences explained by variable sediment transport from Fennoscandian and Variscan sources

The manuscript presents an elaboration of the important problem, in fact a basic one, in investigations of the clastic sediments and the rocks formed by their diagenesis (sandstones). It is the determination of a source of the erosion products as well as evaluation of the change of this material during decomposition of the parent rock, transport, sedimentation and diagenetic processes.

The studied samples were collected in large area and their selection was correct to obtain the representative data. The geological environment the authors are interested in is described sufficiently precisely as a background of the sampling and as the rock complex next characterized more exactly by interpretation of the obtained data. The used analytical methods and equipment are appropriate.

The problem is presented clearly and the way of its elaboration and solution does not raise any kind of objections. The discussion of the results is proper and conclusions are acceptable without doubts and bring significant information. Thus, the article may be also seen as a suggestion and good example for subsequent similar studies.

The cited references are correctly selected and sufficient. I have no critical remarks concerning illustrations.

Some improvements are required by grammatical aspect and vocabulary of the text, but this is easy to correct. I found few grammatical errors and frequent use of the jargon or “scientific slang” expressions. One should remember, that the scientific text must be written in clear and correct language, thus such jargon phrases, though maybe used in the everyday speaking in laboratories or so, in this case should be rejected. Also the title is too long – I think, that the presented problem may named in a title of a half of the length of the current one. The individual cases are marked in the text with sticky notes added.

I evaluate, that after the above-mentioned improvements the manuscript would be appropriate to publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your good suggestions that have helped improve our manuscript.

Please see our point-by-point response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf