|The authors took into consideration most comments to the original version of the manuscript. This resulted in the improved quality of the manuscript. However, no response is provided to some comments of referees. In some cases, the authors provide a response in the Rebuttal letter without adding any text of their response in the manuscript. Authors should not only provide answers to the comments of referees, but make appropriate changes in the manuscript, otherwise some parts of the manuscript remain unclear. |
I provide below, in specific comments, the comments of the previous round that were either not responded or those for which no changes in the text were done. Technical comments contain suggestions of some text improvements that should be done. The comments refer to the line numbers of the revised manuscript given in the form Lxxx. After taking into consideration these comments, a decision on the acceptance of the manuscript for publication can be made.
1. The authors assume that they added the following text in the introduction text, however, I couldn’t find it in the revised manuscript:
“Datasets such as lidar, digital elevation models, or radiometrics data represent only the change in surface properties such as elevation or surface geology. These lineaments may or may not represent structures that extend into the subsurface. By using datasets that represent the subsurface (i.e. gravity and magnetics) lineaments extracted are directly representative of changes in the subsurface. The challenge is (1) identifying if the lineaments from any dataset are geologically meaningful and (2) if lineaments from surface and subsurface datasets represent the same structure (e.g. fault, lithologic boundary).”
2. Nothing from the answer to the following question of referee #1 has been added in the manuscript still keeping the question unanswered for a manuscript reader:
“The area of study has a long and complex geological history. So how do you know that the
lineaments are indeed from the same long-term tectonic history which would be relevant to
the fluid flow and related ore deposit?”
3. The same refers to the following question of the same referee:
“Is there any way to interpolate between the large gaps by giving the machine a specific
4. It is still not explained in the manuscript what a targeting map is.
5. The following comment of referee #2 have not been answered:
“From a geological perspective, the Geological Overview is not well organized and it is almost
impossible to get an image of the geology of the area. Structures and zones cited in the text are
often missing in figures so it is impossible to follow the description. The differentiation between
shear zones and faults the authors make is meaningless. And the paper lacks a description
about the age of faults/shear zones and that of mineralization. If the latter is older than most
of the structures, what is the point of doing this work. Contrarily, if mineralization is younger,
it could use any pathway. That needs to be described in the introduction. And if this is not
known, you need to say it and use it as support for your work.”
6. An answer to the following comment of referee #2 still should be provided:
“Line 125: Are those in any magnetic map? Shouldn ́tt you show the magnetic map with the
interpretation instead of just the interpretation? Is it possible to find the reference you include?
Later on you use Nort-West, ot Nort-west or even NW......revise and be consistent”.
7. An answer to the following comment of referee #2 should be provided instead of providing general words “Please see responses above.”:
“Line 171: Intensity or anomaly? I'd say it is anomaly, considerend the scale. To be confident
with RTP datasets you need to be sure that there is no remanence.....are you? Otherwise, you
are moving anomalies in the wrong direction.”
8. The author write a few times in their responses to the comments “See comments above”. It is not clear, where. The answer “Please see comment above and modified discussion.” is not clear.
L8-11: this part of the abstract provides a content of your study. Please, replace it by the results obtained.
L37: a comma is missing after “(Wilson et al., 2018)”.
L52: a comma is missing after the words “In hydrocarbon exploration”.
L62: a space should be added between the number “200” and “km”.
L77: a space should be added between “1570” and “Ma”.
L77: a comma should be added after “Hand et al. (2007)”.
Figure 1: the order of the descriptions of 3 sub-plots in the capture of the figure should be changed. First should be “Outline of the workflow...”, followed by “Large mineral occurrences in the Gawler Craton...” and finally “Overview map of the Australian continent...”. Additionally, please check for missing commas in the text “Cu, Au Fe, Ag, Pb, Zn, Co, Ni, Cr, Mn Ti”.
L97: the words “see legend Figure 2” should read “see legend of Figure 2”.
L107: a space should be added between “600” and “m” in “600m”.
L115: a space should be added between “part” and “(Figure 3)” in “part(Figure 3)”.
L135: “(Figure( 2)” should read “(Figure 2)”.
L152: a space should be added between “200” and “m” inside of “200m”.
L155, L179: the abbreviation “DEM” is explained already in L24 and L154.
L157: a space should be added before “(Figure 4b)”.
L157: a space should be added between “100” and “m” inside of “100m”.
L158: a space should be added between “50” and “m” inside of “50m” and between “50,000” and “m” inside of “50,000m”.
Capture of Figure 5: “Rose diagram showing the distribution of strike directions of the data...”. Which data? Please explain. “Gaussian distributions fitted to the probability density function...” Gaussian distributions of which parameter? Please, specify.
Figure 6, 7, 8, 9: the text and numbers in two right subplots of each (upper and bottom) panel of these figures are too small. I suggest to arrange all three subplots of each panel in one line and increase the font size, as it is done in Figure 5, to make the text and numbers better visible.
Capture of Figure 6: “bin size of 10”. Please provide a unit of the bin size.
L200: a comma is missing after the words “In compensation”.
Capture of Figure 7: a space should be added between “2070” and “m” inside of “2070m” and between “930” and “m” inside of “930m”.
L221: the abbreviation PCI should be explained at the first use.
L223: “Pandey and Sharma, 2019, e.g.” should read “e.g., Pandey and Sharma, 2019”.
L239: “yield” should read “yields”.
Capture of Figure 8: “the radiometric (total dose rate)” should read “the radiometric data (total dose rate)”. Please, specify the unit of the bin size in the text “bin size of 10”.
L269: the text “2kmx2km” should read “2 km x 2 km”.
L272, 273, 276: a space should be added between a number and “km” or “m” in 6 cases in the lines.
Figure 14: the abbreviation “SA” in the text “Significant to SA” should be explained.
Capture of Figure 14: “that are divide” should read “that are divided”.
L350-351: the sentence starting with “Especially in areas that comprise thick cover...” is not clear. Is a comma missing?
L363: “mineralization are” should read “mineralization is”.
L364: “this seems in-line” should read “this seems to be in-line”.
L381: I think, to be specify the words “Gawler Craton in South Australia” should be added after the words “subsurface and surface lineaments”.
L397: a comma is missing after “On one hand”. The words “On the other hand” are missing in the rest of the section.
L403: I suggest to explicitly add the web link for “South Australian Resources Information Gateway” to be visible, when the paper is printed. The same refers to “FracG” in L404.
L408: the text “wrote parts the manuscript” should read “wrote parts of the manuscript”.
L421: “fro” should read “for”.
L423: the name “hirotugu akaike” should be writted with capital letters: “Hirotugu Akaike”.
L445-446: what is the reason to provide two web links for the same paper?
L501: what is the reason to provide two web links for the same paper?
L521-522: what is the reason to provide two web links for the same paper?
L538: the same web link is given twice.
This manuscript by Kelka et al reports an application of automatic lineament detection of a large-scale subsurface fault network in Australia. Authors use a compelling geophysical dataset and provide a precious comparison between various automatic lineament detection and manual lineament detection. The manuscript is well-written, rather efficient in delivering its message, and figures are important and well designed, even if some are too small, given the richness of the details they bear. This manuscript is an important contribution as large-scale mapping of lineaments (here faults) is an area of growing impact in geology, wether it is for resource exploration, but also for structural integrity of an area and seismogenic risk. I think it fits perfectly the thematic of the special issue it aims at but there is some points that would benefit some more explanations. Hereinafter are reported some relatively minor questions, remarks and suggestion I wish the authors can answer before publication