Dear Authors,

thanks for putting much effort in improving the manuscript. All three reviewers agree that the manuscript has consolidated significantly. There are only a few comments that need to be considered, see report of the reviewers.

Best regards
Ulrike Werban

reviewer 1
The manuscript has been consolidated significantly. I now just have some less important comments.
a. The descriptions in lines 74-75 are not pertinent. Why the protolith of gneiss is granite? This is basically incorrect. The description should be careful.
b. I think “Therefore, in the… by changing the total alkali and calcium ion content” is not necessary and also not suitable. There are total 3 experiments. All the samples are just natural ones, no special efforts are adopted to synthesize samples with different alkali composition. The experimental results can be, but maybe occasionally, explained by the total alkali and calcium components. Therefore, not necessary to emphasize that you measure the conductivity by changing the total alkali and calcium ion content.
c. What is F+ in line 287?
d. The activation energy from 0.5 to 2.0 GPa should be stated in Table 3.
e. What kind of difference in mineralogical assemblage and chemical composition between gneiss and granite in line 326-327? The authors should show it rather than just mention it.
f. Are there studies to interpret the high conductivity anomalies within Dabie-Sulu by fluids or melts?

reviewer 2
I think the author have conducted a great deal of effort to change the ms. Only minor typos or mistake are spread within the ms: (eg. line 45: of instad of "for"; line 49: number instead of "quantity"; remove the 's line 63 of use mineralogical assemblage of granulite...).
I don't like the new title as "complex impedance spectroscopy" is not speaking to any one.
Regarding the last sentence that the high conductivity at Dabie-Sulu may be due to deep fluids or melts, is there any geological evidence for a magmatic activity in this area (eg granitic rocks or volcanoes)?
Figure 8: please try to make the symbols and lines for this study easier to see.
In fig 10 at 30 km the gneisses reach the electrical conductivity of 0.1 S.m, which corresponds to an electrical anomaly; what is the temperature at such a depth, then? is it possible to have such a temperature at 15 km? Would it implies melting?
END.
Fabrice Gaillard

reviewer 3
After a careful reading of the revised manuscript, I found that my suggested corrections were taken into account and incorporated properly and thus, the overall picture improved significantly, both in scientific terms and in terms of the quality of the English language.
I notice 2 minor changes that should be taken into consideration:
First, the authors should give the equation for the calculation of activation volumes (line 303).
Second, in Table 3, the authors should explain the parameters, and change the symbol of the correlation coefficient to R.
I suggest that the revised manuscript will make a significant contribution to the field of geophysical implications of laboratory conductivity measurements and it is suitable for publication in Solid Earth.

Dear Authors,

after an intensive discussion and review process I completely agree with the three reviewers. The manuscript has improved substantially and is now ready for publication. All comments were considered in a comprehensive way. I would like to thank the three reviewers at this point as well.

Best regards
Ulrike Werban