Dear authors,

The topical editor acknowledges the important work realized by the authors to improve the first version of the manuscript. However, one important issue needs to be addressed, indeed the non-uniqueness of the solution, which should be mentioned in the abstract and in the conclusion.

Based on the advice received, the topical editor feels that your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate major revisions. When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer comments which are below, and submit a list of responses to the comments.

====
Second review (Reviewer#2) of Revised Manuscript (se-2018-113) « Crustal Density Model
of the Sea of Marmara […] » by Ershad Gholamrezaie et al.
General remark:
The authors have acknowledgedly included the available shipboard gravity data in their study. They arrive at
similar conclusions as in their original version, e. g. that density contrasts are required below the Ganos and
the Tuzla bends to fit the gravity field. This conclusion makes sense, as it is consistent with wide-angle
reflection-refraction (WARR) seismic data suggesting abrupt uplift of crust and Moho reflectors below both
bends.
WARR, however, mainly provide constraints along East-West, 2D-profiles (see Figure 3 in Bécel et al, 2009,
Tectonophysics 467 , 1–21 ), but not along North-South Profiles. As a result, the 3D geometry of the deep
crustal structure is very difficult to assess, based on WARR. In the Eastern Sea of Marmara, the inferred highdensity
intrusion is consistent with the presence of a highly magnetized body more or less below the Tuzla
bend. In contrast, in the Western Sea of Marmara, there is no evidence for any 3D, high-density crustal body
below the Ganos bend, neither from multi-channel reflection seismics, neither from receiver functions along a
∼650 km transect crossing Western Anatolia at 28◦ E longitude (Karabulut et al, Geophys. J. Int, 194, 450–464).
This raises questions on the reality of the inferred High sensity body below the Ganos bend. The workflow
adopted by the authors is a classical one, carefully described in the paper. It consists in (1) setting up an,initial
density model based on Hergert’s et al previous studies ; (2) calculating the gravity response between the
modelled and the observed gravity; (3) modifying the initial model by introducing additional density variations
to obtain the best fitting model. The authors end up with ONE solution, which is substantially different from
the picture proposed by Kende’s et al (2017).
Recommendation:
My recommendation is « major revisions ». The authors should insist that the solution they propose is not
unique. They should discuss the possibility of fitting other solutions below the Ganos bend (e.g. Kende et al,
2017), when other initial models are choosen. The non-uniqueness issue should be explicitly mentionned in the
abstract and in the conclusion.
Other remark :
Please note that in my previous review, I never claimed that the authors have used the « wrong » dataset. My
concern was that the authors may have used a dataset that could not be « adapted » to the practical purpose
of their study. There is a nuance between « wrong » and « not adapted ». Second, the question is not to check
the quality of the « published and downloadable gravity data », but to check that the dataset they use is
suitable for the objectives of their study.

Dear Ershad Gholamrezaie and co-authors,

We are pleased to let you that your manuscript is now accepted for publication in Solid Earth. I would like to thank you for your revisions and for submitting your work to Solid Earth.

With best wishes,
Susanne Buiter
executive editor