the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 17 Dec 2024
Relict Landscape Evolution and Fault Reactivation in the Eastern Tianshan: Insights from the Harlik Mountains
Abstract. Relict low-relief surfaces, formed during tectonically quiescent periods, are prevalent within the active mountain ranges of Central Asia, but the timing and processes of their formation within the Mesozoic-Cenozoic tectonic context remain poorly understood. In the Harlik Mountains of the easternmost Tianshan, extensive low-relief surfaces are preserved. Terrain analysis and structural interpretations based on DEM data reveal that these surfaces are segmented by WNW-ESE striking faults, which experienced an initial phase of right-lateral transtensional movement followed by left-lateral strike-slip reactivation. Apatite fission-track (AFT) thermochronology of samples from both relict surfaces and fault zones yields AFT ages ranging from ~110 to ~100 Ma for the relict surfaces, while samples from fault zones record ages of 90–70 Ma. Thermal modeling of these samples indicates a period of moderate cooling in the mid-late Early Cretaceous, followed by a prolonged slow cooling phase for the relict surfaces. In contrast, fault zones show rapid cooling during the 90–70 Ma interval. Integrating these data with previous findings, we suggest that the mid-late Early Cretaceous cooling event corresponds to extensional collapse following the Mongol-Okhotsk orogeny. This period of cooling, enhanced by humid climate conditions, likely promoted erosion and relief reduction, fostering the development of low-relief surfaces. Subsequently, the region experienced right-lateral transtensional faulting at 90–70 Ma, linked to continued extensional tectonics from the orogenic collapse. Late-Cretaceous faulting segmented the area without generating significant topographic contrasts across the relict surfaces. During the Oligocene (~30 Ma), far-field tectonic effects from the India-Eurasia collision initiated a new uplift phase that reactivated boundary and internal faults in a left-lateral sense. This phase marked the end of relief reduction, as surrounding basins began receiving sediments, and resulted in the uplift, dissection, and tilting of low-relief surfaces, ultimately contributing to the formation of the modern Eastern Tianshan Mountains.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3420 KB)
-
Supplement
(1224 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3420 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1224 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3668', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Feb 2025
This paper, “Relict Landscape Evolution and Fault Reactivation in the Eastern Tianshan: Insights from the Harlik Mountains,” investigates the geological evolution of the Harlik Mountains in the easternmost Tianshan range, highlighting relict landscape growth and fault reactivation processes. It integrates topographic analysis, structural geology, and low-temperature thermochronology, particularly apatite fission-track (AFT) dating, to provide insight into the timing and processes that influenced this low-relief landscape development. The study establishes two major tectonic phases: cooling in the mid to late Early Cretaceous and subsequent fault reactivation during the Late Cretaceous to early Paleogene. The tectonic events substantially impacted the development of low-relief surfaces and fault movement in the Harlik Mountains.
This study substantially improves the understanding of tectonic and geomorphic evolution in the eastern Tianshan region. The combined effort of geomorphological and thermochronological addresses clarifies the origins of fault reactivation and landscape development. However, the study's dependence on a limited dataset, lack of discussion regarding climate variables, and limited utilization of real-time data urge improvement. It is a significant resource for researchers studying tectonic processes in active mountain ranges, especially in Central Asia. This assessment highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of the study paper. It recognizes the significance of the study while also proposing avenues for future research to build upon its conclusions.
The key limitations of this study that I observed when reviewing this paper and that can be addressed in the revision are as follows.
Major
- The study can be helpful for understanding how the Harlik range has changed over time due to tectonics and geomorphology, but it only analyses certain important components, perhaps missing critical locations where geomorphic processes vary. While a larger sampling area would have improved the analysis, this study may use geomorphic indicators to find useful information in regions where ground data wasn't available. This approach, though constrained, offers a comprehensive understanding of the region’s tectonic and landscape dynamics within the available data framework. The author may utilize diverse ways to perform geomorphic analysis. Geomorphic metrics, such as the Stream Length-Gradient Index (SL), Mountain Front Sinuosity (Smf), and Basin Asymmetry Factor (Af), are valuable to assess tectonic activity. These indices can reveal anomalies in landscape patterns that may indicate regions of uplift or subsidence. Topographic analysis can utilize features such as river knickpoints, channel steepness (χ-analysis), or incision rates obtained from DEMs to deduce tectonic processes. In the lack of extensive field data, such indicators may provide significant insights into present or past tectonic activity.
- This study acknowledges the influence of climate on erosion rates but fails to comprehensively assess its contribution to long-term landscape growth. A comprehensive analysis of this theme would enhance understanding of the influence of climatic variables on long-term geomorphic evolution in connection to tectonics. In regions with limited data, evaluating the impact of climate-induced erosion and sediment transport on geomorphic processes might improve our understanding of the evolution of landscapes. This method can be employed to examine the interaction between regional climate and tectonic uplift in shaping topography, particularly in elevated, low-relief regions influenced by glaciation, landslides, or fluvial systems. Although this is not mandatory for this kind of study, it may be analyzed for connecting the relationship of climate and tectonics if authors find it useful to explain their hypothesis.
- This study concentrates on historical fault reactivation but excludes contemporary or real-time fault observation datasets. Current geodetic or seismic data could have provided an improved understanding of current fault movement and the implications for the region's tectonic evolution.
Minor:
- The abstract component could possibly be improved. This would enable a broader audience to comprehend the scientific narrative more effectively.
- In numerous instances within the discussion section, the geomorphological, tectonic, and thermochronological narratives have not been adequately associated. If possible, please provide insights on how the combined role of topographic metrics, thermochronological datasets, and tectonics can support your hypothesis.
- Please rewrite the conclusion section if possible, incorporating examples of the future scope of this work and the limitations of this study.
Kindly refer to the annotated PDF file for detailed remarks that will assist the author in revising the article properly.
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zihao Zhao, 14 Feb 2025
Dear Anonymous Referee,
We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript, “Relict Landscape Evolution and Fault Reactivation in the Eastern Tianshan: Insights from the Harlik Mountains.” Your feedback has been invaluable in refining our study and strengthening our interpretations. Below, we provide our responses to the major concerns you raised.
Major Comments
- Geomorphic Analysis and Additional Metrics
Comment: The study focuses on specific aspects of geomorphic processes but does not explore additional geomorphic indices (e.g., Stream Length-Gradient Index (SL), Mountain Front Sinuosity (Smf), Basin Asymmetry Factor (Af), χ-analysis, or incision rates) that could provide further insights into tectonic activity.
Response: We sincerely appreciate this thoughtful suggestion. Based on your valuable feedback, we plan to incorporate river knickpoints, χ-map, and longitudinal river profile analysis in the revised manuscript to further explore the relationship between fault reactivation and landscape evolution. We believe these additions will enhance our discussion of tectonic influences on geomorphology. Regarding incision rates, while we recognize their significance, our current dataset lacks the necessary cosmogenic nuclide dating (e.g., 10Be exposure ages) to reliably constrain them. We will acknowledge this limitation in the revised manuscript and highlight its potential for future studies.
- Climate Influence on Erosion and Landscape Evolution
Comment: While the study recognizes climate as a factor influencing erosion rates, it does not thoroughly assess its long-term role in shaping the landscape. A more detailed analysis of climate-induced erosion and sediment transport would improve the study’s connection between climate and tectonics.
Response: We appreciate this insightful point and fully acknowledge that climate-induced erosion plays a crucial role in shaping geomorphic processes. While our primary focus is on tectonic controls, we recognize that climate interactions are significant, particularly in relation to glaciation and fluvial dynamics. In the revised manuscript, we will enhance our discussion on this aspect while acknowledging that a full quantitative analysis remains beyond our current framework.
- Lack of Contemporary or Real-Time Fault Data
Comment: The study does not incorporate contemporary fault movement data (e.g., geodetic or seismic data), which could provide additional insights into ongoing tectonic activity.
Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion and recognize the importance of contemporary geodetic and seismic data in understanding active fault dynamics. Given that our study focuses on reconstructing Mesozoic to early Cenozoic fault reactivation, we have primarily relied on geological and geomorphic evidence to address our research objectives. While the integration of real-time fault data falls beyond the scope of our current analysis, we acknowledge its potential to enhance the understanding of recent tectonic activity and will consider its relevance for future investigations on Cenozoic fault dynamics in this region.
Minor Comments
We acknowledge the minor comments regarding improvements in the abstract, discussion, and conclusion sections. We will carefully incorporate these suggestions into the revised manuscript. Additionally, we will review the specific suggestions provided in the annotated PDF and incorporate relevant revisions to enhance the clarity and coherence of our analysis.
Final Statement
Once again, we sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful and constructive feedback. The detailed comments have been instrumental in refining our study, and we are confident that the suggested revisions will significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity and impact.
Best regards,
Zihao Zhao
On behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tianyi Shen, 23 Mar 2025
Dear Anonymous Referee:
We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to your suggestions, and we summarize the key modifications below.
Major Revisions
- Incorporation of Additional Geomorphic Analyses
To enhance our discussion on geomorphic processes and their relationship with tectonic activity, we have incorporated river knickpoint analysis, χ-maps, and longitudinal river profile analysis. These additions provide further insights into fault reactivation and landscape evolution. Additionally, we have acknowledged the limitations regarding incision rate estimation due to the lack of cosmogenic nuclide dating and have suggested it as a direction for future research.
- Expanded Discussion on Climate Influence
We have strengthened our discussion on potential climate-induced erosion and sediment transport, particularly in relation to fluvial dynamics. While our primary focus remains on tectonic controls, we now provide a more detailed assessment of how climate changes may have shaped the landscape over time, along with relevant literature to support this perspective.
- Clarification on the Scope of Fault Data
As our study focuses on reconstructing Mesozoic to early Cenozoic fault reactivation; we therefore primarily rely on geological and geomorphic evidence. While real-time geodetic and seismic data would provide valuable insights into contemporary fault dynamics, they fall outside the temporal scope of our analysis. We have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript and highlighted the potential for future research on recent fault activity in the region.
Minor Revisions
In addition to addressing the major comments, we have incorporated the suggested minor revisions, including improvements to the abstract, discussion, and conclusion sections. We have also carefully reviewed the annotated PDF and made relevant modifications to enhance clarity, coherence, and readability.
Final Statement
Once again, thank you for your invaluable feedback. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to improving the manuscript.
Best regards,
Tianyi Shen
On behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3668', Malte Froemchen, 13 Feb 2025
This paper uses an interdisciplinary approach to investigate the timing and processes behind the formation of relict low-relief landscapes in the Harlik Mountains in the Eastern Tianshan. Geomorphology and Structural analysis of the area were used to identify several low-relief surfaces and analyse their relation to the faults. AFT dating on new samples reveals the Mesozoic-Cenozoic uplift history of this region and provides new temporal data on the formation of these low-relief relict surfaces as well as the reactivation of faults. Two major evolutionary phases are identified: (i) Exhumation and related cooling in the Early Cretaceous and (ii) Reactivation of faults in the Late Cretaceous and the onset of the formation of the relict low-relief surfaces. The discussion brings up interesting points about the role of climate and aridification in the Cretaceous on the development of these relict surfaces and puts the study into the more regional tectonic picture.
The study adds some novel data to this region and the spatiotemporal development of low-relief surfaces in the wider region. I’m sure it will be of great use to the scientific community interested in Central Asian tectonics but also more widely in the development of low-relief relict surfaces in mountain belts. The paper is overall well-structured and fits the scope of the journal. I think some editing and restructuring of some parts would benefit the paper and would make the key messages clearer. Below are some general comments as well as further comments on the figures and line-specific comments to help with this:
General comments:
- The abstract could be more concise and focused to better highlight the core contributions of the paper. I’d recommend restructuring it slightly, perhaps by moving the sentence “…
- The figure captions could be more detailed and descriptive. Especially for some of the figures that contain a lot of information. These figures (for example 2 and 3) are full of useful information but require time to fully grasp, adding clearer figure captions highlighting the key points would help guide the reader and ensure they are more easily understood.
- Section 3 would benefit from clearer separation between Methods, Results and Discussion to improve readability and structure. These sections on geomorphology and structural geology are a bit short and often mix methodology, and results with some discussion. I think these sections are important to the argument to investigate the spatial relations of the faults and low-relief relict surfaces but may need more elaboration. Currently, the paper feels primarily like an AFT–thermal modeling study, with remote sensing and geomorphology used to identify surfaces and some fieldwork to identify faults. To highlight the interdisciplinary nature of the study, the geomorphology and structural geology aspects could be developed further, particularly in providing further field-based evidence to strengthen the argument for fault reactivation. I think this would complement the overall conclusion of the paper well by showing some more evidence for these faults being reactivated (or references to relevant papers showing clear evidence for the reactivation of these particular faults). For the geomorphology part, you may look into a variety of further methods to quantify the landscape such as geomorphic indices (Surface-Roughness, Hypsometric Integral, Elevation-Relief Ratio for example) that can help deduce the tectonic history. This would help present a more complete picture and complement the other parts of the study.
- Perhaps a more of a minor point but I think it would be helpful if the introduction, discussion and conclusion flow more seamlessly together by stating clearly the research questions in the introduction and coming back to these later. For example, comparing how the new data from the paper adds to existing theories or contests these. I think this would help the readability of the paper and make the reader aware of what they can expect to be discussed from the start.
Figure comments:
- Figure 2 – In (a), specifying fault types (as in 2c) would improve clarity. In (b), if these are SWATH profiles, adding a legend for line colours (as in Figure 3) and specifying corridor width would help make more clear what is being shown. The legend is also hard to read—enlarging the AFT age scale and repositioning one legend (e.g., to the right) would make it more readable. In (c), fault zones are difficult to distinguish—consider using colour (e.g., red for normal faults) and make strike-slip symbols larger.
- Figure 3 – Since this figure is key to illustrating low-relief surfaces, making their boundaries clearer would help. A supplementary figure showing just the topography with faults could aid verification, and a slope map in the supplement might further support surface identification. The small images in the bottom left of (a) are too small to be useful. Consider moving them to a separate figure or the supplementary material, with both uninterpreted and interpreted versions side by side.
- Figure 4 – I think as a whole this figure shows a lot of interesting information that is important to your argument but it’s also a very busy figure that is hard to read. I’m not sure if the thin section images add much beyond what the outcrop photos already show, —consider removing them – or explain more thoroughly in the figure caption what makes them important. The other images are important but too small to interpret effectively. Either enlarge them or keep the 3×3 layout and provide high-resolution versions in the supplement (with both interpreted and uninterpreted versions). Similarly, the stereonets are too small and should include details like the number of measurements (and ideally for open science purposes it would be great if a table with the raw data used to generate these is provided for reproducibility)
- Figure 5 – I like this figure, it is clear and well-structured. Consider adding more detail in the caption about the distribution of ages.
- Figure 6 – Another well-designed figure. Try to keep the age scale consistent across the right-hand panels, that makes it easier to see that fault-affected ages are younger.
- Figure 8 – A strong summary of the thermochronology findings. However, the tectonic drivers appear somewhat unclear and potentially speculative—consider refining this aspect for clarity.
Line-Specific comments:
- l.34-36 – I think this is a very interesting question. Since it’s introduced here, consider revisiting it in the discussion and conclusion. Does the data and model presented in this paper support any of the existing theories?
- l.100 – What is the significance of the Urumqi-Korla line? Clarifying the nature or basis of this line, along with relevant references, would be helpful.
- l.106 – What is the nature of the Palaeozoic strata in the Harlik Mountains? Is it the volcaniclastic rocks mentioned earlier? Just looking at the map in Fig.2 it appears the southern part of the Harlik Mountains has more of the igeneous intrusions, is there perhaps lithology influence on the formation of low-relief relict surfaces?
- l.238 – More details on the paleostress analysis would be useful—how was it computed? If faults were reactivated, I would expect different generations of kinematic markers or other field-based evidence. Is this observable in outcrop or thin section? I appreciate this may be beyond the paper’s scope, but are there any constraints on the ages of the faults, or is there material present that could be dated (fault-hosted calcite)? It would be interesting to compare such data with thermochronology results.
- l.245 – How were these faults delineated—field mapping, geomorphological constraints, or both? You mention that fault scarps are prominent, but this is hard for the reader to verify. A large unannotated topographic map (maybe in the supplementary material) could help show both the fault scarps and low-relief surfaces.
- l.259 – The ductile kinematic indicators on this fault are interesting, I assume these are Palaeozoic? Is this part of a more regional shear zone? What brittle features were used for palaeostress (strain) interpretation? Are you certain the left lateral kinematic indicators on this fault correspond to the same phase as the right-lateral ones on the other faults? Some additional evidence might help clarify this.
- l.396 – Can you elaborate on the relationship between the extensional environment and gentle topography? Wouldn’t extension lead to footwall uplift and development of topography – which would then be associated with cooling in the AFT data? Or was this phase just very gentle extension?
- l.410-418 – This argument may be difficult to follow for readers unfamiliar with the regional tectonics of this area. I think it is an important point and puts the study into the regional context, maybe consider expanding it and possibly adding a diagram or schematic illustrating the spatial and temporal aspects of these tectonic events.
- l.452 – Is there (field)evidence that faults showing later activity were reactivated? Are there any age constraints? I.e. Is it certain these are Palaeozoic faults being reactivated, or could these be solely Mesozoic structures?
- l.457-468 – This is an interesting argument, especially given the role of climate in relict low-relief landscape formation. However, I think this paragraph needs some rewording to make the argument clearer. Are you suggesting that wetter Jurassic conditions led to more significant erosion, with later aridification during the Mid-Cretaceous preserving the landscapes? A slight restructuring and elaboration on this might improve clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-RC2 -
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zihao Zhao, 14 Feb 2025
Dear Malte Froemchen,
We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on our manuscript, “Relict Landscape Evolution and Fault Reactivation in the Eastern Tianshan: Insights from the Harlik Mountains.” Your insightful comments have been instrumental in refining our study and improving the clarity of our arguments. Below, we provide detailed responses to the major comments, while minor comments will be addressed in the revised manuscript as appropriate.
Major Comments
- Refining the Structure and Logical Flow
Comment: The distinction between Methods, Results, and Discussion is not always clear, particularly in the geomorphology and structural geology sections, where methodology, results, and interpretations are sometimes mixed. Additionally, the introduction, discussion, and conclusion could be better connected to enhance logical flow.
Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion and recognize the importance of a well-structured manuscript. To improve clarity and coherence, we will:
- Clearly separate Methods, Results, and Discussion to ensure a structured and systematic presentation.
- Expand the geomorphology and structural geology sections to provide a more comprehensive description of structural features and their significance.
- Explicitly state research questions in the introduction and systematically revisit them in the discussion and conclusion to reinforce the logical flow and key findings.
These adjustments will significantly enhance the overall readability and organization of the manuscript.
- Incorporating Additional Geomorphic Metrics
Comment: The study could benefit from including quantitative geomorphic indices such as Surface-Roughness, Hypsometric Integral, and Elevation-Relief Ratio to better characterize tectonic history.
Response: Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. We fully acknowledge the value of these geomorphic indices in characterizing tectonic processes, and will consider incorporating them in future investigations. However, given the focus of our stud, we have prioritized the metrics that best align with our research objectives. Specifically, in the revised manuscript, we will:
- Include river knickpoints, χ-map, and longitudinal river profile analysis to provide a more detailed assessment of fault reactivation and landscape evolution.
- Discuss how these selected metrics contribute to identifying tectonic uplift and active deformation zones.
By refining our existing analyses, we aim to maintain a focused yet comprehensive approach to investigating fault reactivation and landscape evolution.
- Climate Influence on Landscape Evolution
Comment: While climate is briefly mentioned, a more detailed discussion on the interaction between climate and tectonics (e.g., aridification, erosion rates) would strengthen the study.
Response: This is an excellent point. While our primary focus is on tectonic controls, we fully acknowledge that climate-induced erosion and sediment transport have played a role in shaping the landscape. To better integrate this aspect into our discussion, we will:
- Expand our analysis of climate-driven geomorphic processes, particularly focusing on the role of Cretaceous aridification in preserving low-relief surfaces.
- Incorporate references to regional climatic studies to provide a broader context for our interpretations.
Although a full quantitative climate analysis is beyond the scope of this study, we recognize the importance of this perspective and will ensure that these aspects are adequately addressed in the discussion.
- Strengthening Evidence for Fault Reactivation
Comment: The manuscript includes paleostress analysis and kinematic markers, which are important for reconstructing fault reactivation history. However, further clarification on their interpretation and relevance would strengthen the argument. Additionally, aligning the thermochronology results more explicitly with the structural observations and referencing relevant previous studies could enhance the overall discussion.
Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable comment. Our study already includes paleostress analysis and kinematic markers, which play a crucial role in reconstructing fault reactivation history. In the revised manuscript, we will:
- Provide a more detailed explanation of the paleostress analysis and kinematic indicators, ensuring their interpretation is clearly conveyed.
- Strengthen our discussion by referencing previous studies that document similar fault reactivation processes in the Eastern Tianshan.
- Clarify how our thermochronology results align with structural observations, reinforcing the interpretation of multi-phase fault activity.
These refinements will ensure a more comprehensive and well-supported discussion on fault reactivation while maintaining the study’s original scope.
Minor Comments
We acknowledge the minor comments regarding abstract restructuring, figure captions, and improvements to clarity in specific sections. We will carefully incorporate these suggestions to enhance readability and presentation.
Final Statement
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your constructive and thoughtful feedback, which has provided valuable directions for improving our study. We are confident that these revisions will significantly strengthen the clarity, coherence, and overall contribution of our study to the field.
Best regards,
Zihao Zhao
On behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tianyi Shen, 23 Mar 2025
Dear Malte Froemchen,
We greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating our work. Your feedback has been highly constructive and instrumental in improving the structure, clarity, and scientific rigor of our study. Below, we provide a point-by-point summary of the revisions made in response to your comments.
Major Revisions
- Refining the Structure and Logical Flow
To improve clarity and coherence, we have:
- Clearly separated the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections to ensure a structured and systematic presentation.
- Expanded the geomorphology and structural geology sections to provide a more comprehensive description of structural features and their significance.
- Explicitly stated the research questions in the introduction and systematically revisited them in the discussion and conclusion to enhance logical flow and reinforce key findings.
These revisions have significantly improved the manuscript’s readability and organization.
- Incorporation of Additional Geomorphic Metrics
To strengthen our geomorphic analysis, we have:
- Incorporated river knickpoint analysis, χ-maps, and longitudinal river profile analysis to provide a more detailed assessment of fault reactivation and landscape evolution.
- Expanded our discussion on how these selected metrics help identify tectonic uplift and active deformation zones.
While additional indices such as Surface-Roughness, Hypsometric Integral, and Elevation-Relief Ratio are valuable, we have prioritized metrics that best align with our study’s objectives. We acknowledge the potential of these indices for future investigations.
- Climate Influence on Landscape Evolution
We have enhanced our discussion on climate-tectonic interactions by:
- Expanding our analysis of climate-driven geomorphic processes, particularly emphasizing the role of Cretaceous aridification in preserving low-relief surfaces.
- Incorporating references to regional climatic studies to provide a broader context for our interpretations.
Although a full quantitative climate analysis remains beyond the scope of our study, we have ensured that these aspects are adequately addressed to provide a more balanced discussion.
- Strengthening Evidence for Fault Reactivation
To reinforce our arguments on fault reactivation, we have:
- Provided a more detailed explanation of the paleostress analysis and kinematic indicators to improve clarity.
- Strengthened our discussion by referencing previous studies documenting similar fault reactivation processes in the Eastern Tianshan.
- Clarified how our thermochronology results align with structural observations, further supporting the interpretation of multi-phase fault activity.
These refinements ensure a more comprehensive and well-supported discussion of fault reactivation while maintaining the study’s original scope.
Minor Revisions
In addition to addressing the major comments, we have implemented all suggested minor revisions, including:
- Restructuring the abstract for improved clarity.
- Refining figure captions for better readability.
- Enhancing specific sections to improve clarity and coherence.
Final Statement
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback. Your comments have significantly contributed to improving our study, and we are confident that the revised manuscript now better reflects the clarity, coherence, and impact expected in this field.
Best regards,
Tianyi Shen
On behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-AC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3668', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Feb 2025
This paper, “Relict Landscape Evolution and Fault Reactivation in the Eastern Tianshan: Insights from the Harlik Mountains,” investigates the geological evolution of the Harlik Mountains in the easternmost Tianshan range, highlighting relict landscape growth and fault reactivation processes. It integrates topographic analysis, structural geology, and low-temperature thermochronology, particularly apatite fission-track (AFT) dating, to provide insight into the timing and processes that influenced this low-relief landscape development. The study establishes two major tectonic phases: cooling in the mid to late Early Cretaceous and subsequent fault reactivation during the Late Cretaceous to early Paleogene. The tectonic events substantially impacted the development of low-relief surfaces and fault movement in the Harlik Mountains.
This study substantially improves the understanding of tectonic and geomorphic evolution in the eastern Tianshan region. The combined effort of geomorphological and thermochronological addresses clarifies the origins of fault reactivation and landscape development. However, the study's dependence on a limited dataset, lack of discussion regarding climate variables, and limited utilization of real-time data urge improvement. It is a significant resource for researchers studying tectonic processes in active mountain ranges, especially in Central Asia. This assessment highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of the study paper. It recognizes the significance of the study while also proposing avenues for future research to build upon its conclusions.
The key limitations of this study that I observed when reviewing this paper and that can be addressed in the revision are as follows.
Major
- The study can be helpful for understanding how the Harlik range has changed over time due to tectonics and geomorphology, but it only analyses certain important components, perhaps missing critical locations where geomorphic processes vary. While a larger sampling area would have improved the analysis, this study may use geomorphic indicators to find useful information in regions where ground data wasn't available. This approach, though constrained, offers a comprehensive understanding of the region’s tectonic and landscape dynamics within the available data framework. The author may utilize diverse ways to perform geomorphic analysis. Geomorphic metrics, such as the Stream Length-Gradient Index (SL), Mountain Front Sinuosity (Smf), and Basin Asymmetry Factor (Af), are valuable to assess tectonic activity. These indices can reveal anomalies in landscape patterns that may indicate regions of uplift or subsidence. Topographic analysis can utilize features such as river knickpoints, channel steepness (χ-analysis), or incision rates obtained from DEMs to deduce tectonic processes. In the lack of extensive field data, such indicators may provide significant insights into present or past tectonic activity.
- This study acknowledges the influence of climate on erosion rates but fails to comprehensively assess its contribution to long-term landscape growth. A comprehensive analysis of this theme would enhance understanding of the influence of climatic variables on long-term geomorphic evolution in connection to tectonics. In regions with limited data, evaluating the impact of climate-induced erosion and sediment transport on geomorphic processes might improve our understanding of the evolution of landscapes. This method can be employed to examine the interaction between regional climate and tectonic uplift in shaping topography, particularly in elevated, low-relief regions influenced by glaciation, landslides, or fluvial systems. Although this is not mandatory for this kind of study, it may be analyzed for connecting the relationship of climate and tectonics if authors find it useful to explain their hypothesis.
- This study concentrates on historical fault reactivation but excludes contemporary or real-time fault observation datasets. Current geodetic or seismic data could have provided an improved understanding of current fault movement and the implications for the region's tectonic evolution.
Minor:
- The abstract component could possibly be improved. This would enable a broader audience to comprehend the scientific narrative more effectively.
- In numerous instances within the discussion section, the geomorphological, tectonic, and thermochronological narratives have not been adequately associated. If possible, please provide insights on how the combined role of topographic metrics, thermochronological datasets, and tectonics can support your hypothesis.
- Please rewrite the conclusion section if possible, incorporating examples of the future scope of this work and the limitations of this study.
Kindly refer to the annotated PDF file for detailed remarks that will assist the author in revising the article properly.
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zihao Zhao, 14 Feb 2025
Dear Anonymous Referee,
We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript, “Relict Landscape Evolution and Fault Reactivation in the Eastern Tianshan: Insights from the Harlik Mountains.” Your feedback has been invaluable in refining our study and strengthening our interpretations. Below, we provide our responses to the major concerns you raised.
Major Comments
- Geomorphic Analysis and Additional Metrics
Comment: The study focuses on specific aspects of geomorphic processes but does not explore additional geomorphic indices (e.g., Stream Length-Gradient Index (SL), Mountain Front Sinuosity (Smf), Basin Asymmetry Factor (Af), χ-analysis, or incision rates) that could provide further insights into tectonic activity.
Response: We sincerely appreciate this thoughtful suggestion. Based on your valuable feedback, we plan to incorporate river knickpoints, χ-map, and longitudinal river profile analysis in the revised manuscript to further explore the relationship between fault reactivation and landscape evolution. We believe these additions will enhance our discussion of tectonic influences on geomorphology. Regarding incision rates, while we recognize their significance, our current dataset lacks the necessary cosmogenic nuclide dating (e.g., 10Be exposure ages) to reliably constrain them. We will acknowledge this limitation in the revised manuscript and highlight its potential for future studies.
- Climate Influence on Erosion and Landscape Evolution
Comment: While the study recognizes climate as a factor influencing erosion rates, it does not thoroughly assess its long-term role in shaping the landscape. A more detailed analysis of climate-induced erosion and sediment transport would improve the study’s connection between climate and tectonics.
Response: We appreciate this insightful point and fully acknowledge that climate-induced erosion plays a crucial role in shaping geomorphic processes. While our primary focus is on tectonic controls, we recognize that climate interactions are significant, particularly in relation to glaciation and fluvial dynamics. In the revised manuscript, we will enhance our discussion on this aspect while acknowledging that a full quantitative analysis remains beyond our current framework.
- Lack of Contemporary or Real-Time Fault Data
Comment: The study does not incorporate contemporary fault movement data (e.g., geodetic or seismic data), which could provide additional insights into ongoing tectonic activity.
Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion and recognize the importance of contemporary geodetic and seismic data in understanding active fault dynamics. Given that our study focuses on reconstructing Mesozoic to early Cenozoic fault reactivation, we have primarily relied on geological and geomorphic evidence to address our research objectives. While the integration of real-time fault data falls beyond the scope of our current analysis, we acknowledge its potential to enhance the understanding of recent tectonic activity and will consider its relevance for future investigations on Cenozoic fault dynamics in this region.
Minor Comments
We acknowledge the minor comments regarding improvements in the abstract, discussion, and conclusion sections. We will carefully incorporate these suggestions into the revised manuscript. Additionally, we will review the specific suggestions provided in the annotated PDF and incorporate relevant revisions to enhance the clarity and coherence of our analysis.
Final Statement
Once again, we sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful and constructive feedback. The detailed comments have been instrumental in refining our study, and we are confident that the suggested revisions will significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity and impact.
Best regards,
Zihao Zhao
On behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tianyi Shen, 23 Mar 2025
Dear Anonymous Referee:
We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to your suggestions, and we summarize the key modifications below.
Major Revisions
- Incorporation of Additional Geomorphic Analyses
To enhance our discussion on geomorphic processes and their relationship with tectonic activity, we have incorporated river knickpoint analysis, χ-maps, and longitudinal river profile analysis. These additions provide further insights into fault reactivation and landscape evolution. Additionally, we have acknowledged the limitations regarding incision rate estimation due to the lack of cosmogenic nuclide dating and have suggested it as a direction for future research.
- Expanded Discussion on Climate Influence
We have strengthened our discussion on potential climate-induced erosion and sediment transport, particularly in relation to fluvial dynamics. While our primary focus remains on tectonic controls, we now provide a more detailed assessment of how climate changes may have shaped the landscape over time, along with relevant literature to support this perspective.
- Clarification on the Scope of Fault Data
As our study focuses on reconstructing Mesozoic to early Cenozoic fault reactivation; we therefore primarily rely on geological and geomorphic evidence. While real-time geodetic and seismic data would provide valuable insights into contemporary fault dynamics, they fall outside the temporal scope of our analysis. We have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript and highlighted the potential for future research on recent fault activity in the region.
Minor Revisions
In addition to addressing the major comments, we have incorporated the suggested minor revisions, including improvements to the abstract, discussion, and conclusion sections. We have also carefully reviewed the annotated PDF and made relevant modifications to enhance clarity, coherence, and readability.
Final Statement
Once again, thank you for your invaluable feedback. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to improving the manuscript.
Best regards,
Tianyi Shen
On behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3668', Malte Froemchen, 13 Feb 2025
This paper uses an interdisciplinary approach to investigate the timing and processes behind the formation of relict low-relief landscapes in the Harlik Mountains in the Eastern Tianshan. Geomorphology and Structural analysis of the area were used to identify several low-relief surfaces and analyse their relation to the faults. AFT dating on new samples reveals the Mesozoic-Cenozoic uplift history of this region and provides new temporal data on the formation of these low-relief relict surfaces as well as the reactivation of faults. Two major evolutionary phases are identified: (i) Exhumation and related cooling in the Early Cretaceous and (ii) Reactivation of faults in the Late Cretaceous and the onset of the formation of the relict low-relief surfaces. The discussion brings up interesting points about the role of climate and aridification in the Cretaceous on the development of these relict surfaces and puts the study into the more regional tectonic picture.
The study adds some novel data to this region and the spatiotemporal development of low-relief surfaces in the wider region. I’m sure it will be of great use to the scientific community interested in Central Asian tectonics but also more widely in the development of low-relief relict surfaces in mountain belts. The paper is overall well-structured and fits the scope of the journal. I think some editing and restructuring of some parts would benefit the paper and would make the key messages clearer. Below are some general comments as well as further comments on the figures and line-specific comments to help with this:
General comments:
- The abstract could be more concise and focused to better highlight the core contributions of the paper. I’d recommend restructuring it slightly, perhaps by moving the sentence “…
- The figure captions could be more detailed and descriptive. Especially for some of the figures that contain a lot of information. These figures (for example 2 and 3) are full of useful information but require time to fully grasp, adding clearer figure captions highlighting the key points would help guide the reader and ensure they are more easily understood.
- Section 3 would benefit from clearer separation between Methods, Results and Discussion to improve readability and structure. These sections on geomorphology and structural geology are a bit short and often mix methodology, and results with some discussion. I think these sections are important to the argument to investigate the spatial relations of the faults and low-relief relict surfaces but may need more elaboration. Currently, the paper feels primarily like an AFT–thermal modeling study, with remote sensing and geomorphology used to identify surfaces and some fieldwork to identify faults. To highlight the interdisciplinary nature of the study, the geomorphology and structural geology aspects could be developed further, particularly in providing further field-based evidence to strengthen the argument for fault reactivation. I think this would complement the overall conclusion of the paper well by showing some more evidence for these faults being reactivated (or references to relevant papers showing clear evidence for the reactivation of these particular faults). For the geomorphology part, you may look into a variety of further methods to quantify the landscape such as geomorphic indices (Surface-Roughness, Hypsometric Integral, Elevation-Relief Ratio for example) that can help deduce the tectonic history. This would help present a more complete picture and complement the other parts of the study.
- Perhaps a more of a minor point but I think it would be helpful if the introduction, discussion and conclusion flow more seamlessly together by stating clearly the research questions in the introduction and coming back to these later. For example, comparing how the new data from the paper adds to existing theories or contests these. I think this would help the readability of the paper and make the reader aware of what they can expect to be discussed from the start.
Figure comments:
- Figure 2 – In (a), specifying fault types (as in 2c) would improve clarity. In (b), if these are SWATH profiles, adding a legend for line colours (as in Figure 3) and specifying corridor width would help make more clear what is being shown. The legend is also hard to read—enlarging the AFT age scale and repositioning one legend (e.g., to the right) would make it more readable. In (c), fault zones are difficult to distinguish—consider using colour (e.g., red for normal faults) and make strike-slip symbols larger.
- Figure 3 – Since this figure is key to illustrating low-relief surfaces, making their boundaries clearer would help. A supplementary figure showing just the topography with faults could aid verification, and a slope map in the supplement might further support surface identification. The small images in the bottom left of (a) are too small to be useful. Consider moving them to a separate figure or the supplementary material, with both uninterpreted and interpreted versions side by side.
- Figure 4 – I think as a whole this figure shows a lot of interesting information that is important to your argument but it’s also a very busy figure that is hard to read. I’m not sure if the thin section images add much beyond what the outcrop photos already show, —consider removing them – or explain more thoroughly in the figure caption what makes them important. The other images are important but too small to interpret effectively. Either enlarge them or keep the 3×3 layout and provide high-resolution versions in the supplement (with both interpreted and uninterpreted versions). Similarly, the stereonets are too small and should include details like the number of measurements (and ideally for open science purposes it would be great if a table with the raw data used to generate these is provided for reproducibility)
- Figure 5 – I like this figure, it is clear and well-structured. Consider adding more detail in the caption about the distribution of ages.
- Figure 6 – Another well-designed figure. Try to keep the age scale consistent across the right-hand panels, that makes it easier to see that fault-affected ages are younger.
- Figure 8 – A strong summary of the thermochronology findings. However, the tectonic drivers appear somewhat unclear and potentially speculative—consider refining this aspect for clarity.
Line-Specific comments:
- l.34-36 – I think this is a very interesting question. Since it’s introduced here, consider revisiting it in the discussion and conclusion. Does the data and model presented in this paper support any of the existing theories?
- l.100 – What is the significance of the Urumqi-Korla line? Clarifying the nature or basis of this line, along with relevant references, would be helpful.
- l.106 – What is the nature of the Palaeozoic strata in the Harlik Mountains? Is it the volcaniclastic rocks mentioned earlier? Just looking at the map in Fig.2 it appears the southern part of the Harlik Mountains has more of the igeneous intrusions, is there perhaps lithology influence on the formation of low-relief relict surfaces?
- l.238 – More details on the paleostress analysis would be useful—how was it computed? If faults were reactivated, I would expect different generations of kinematic markers or other field-based evidence. Is this observable in outcrop or thin section? I appreciate this may be beyond the paper’s scope, but are there any constraints on the ages of the faults, or is there material present that could be dated (fault-hosted calcite)? It would be interesting to compare such data with thermochronology results.
- l.245 – How were these faults delineated—field mapping, geomorphological constraints, or both? You mention that fault scarps are prominent, but this is hard for the reader to verify. A large unannotated topographic map (maybe in the supplementary material) could help show both the fault scarps and low-relief surfaces.
- l.259 – The ductile kinematic indicators on this fault are interesting, I assume these are Palaeozoic? Is this part of a more regional shear zone? What brittle features were used for palaeostress (strain) interpretation? Are you certain the left lateral kinematic indicators on this fault correspond to the same phase as the right-lateral ones on the other faults? Some additional evidence might help clarify this.
- l.396 – Can you elaborate on the relationship between the extensional environment and gentle topography? Wouldn’t extension lead to footwall uplift and development of topography – which would then be associated with cooling in the AFT data? Or was this phase just very gentle extension?
- l.410-418 – This argument may be difficult to follow for readers unfamiliar with the regional tectonics of this area. I think it is an important point and puts the study into the regional context, maybe consider expanding it and possibly adding a diagram or schematic illustrating the spatial and temporal aspects of these tectonic events.
- l.452 – Is there (field)evidence that faults showing later activity were reactivated? Are there any age constraints? I.e. Is it certain these are Palaeozoic faults being reactivated, or could these be solely Mesozoic structures?
- l.457-468 – This is an interesting argument, especially given the role of climate in relict low-relief landscape formation. However, I think this paragraph needs some rewording to make the argument clearer. Are you suggesting that wetter Jurassic conditions led to more significant erosion, with later aridification during the Mid-Cretaceous preserving the landscapes? A slight restructuring and elaboration on this might improve clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-RC2 -
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zihao Zhao, 14 Feb 2025
Dear Malte Froemchen,
We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on our manuscript, “Relict Landscape Evolution and Fault Reactivation in the Eastern Tianshan: Insights from the Harlik Mountains.” Your insightful comments have been instrumental in refining our study and improving the clarity of our arguments. Below, we provide detailed responses to the major comments, while minor comments will be addressed in the revised manuscript as appropriate.
Major Comments
- Refining the Structure and Logical Flow
Comment: The distinction between Methods, Results, and Discussion is not always clear, particularly in the geomorphology and structural geology sections, where methodology, results, and interpretations are sometimes mixed. Additionally, the introduction, discussion, and conclusion could be better connected to enhance logical flow.
Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion and recognize the importance of a well-structured manuscript. To improve clarity and coherence, we will:
- Clearly separate Methods, Results, and Discussion to ensure a structured and systematic presentation.
- Expand the geomorphology and structural geology sections to provide a more comprehensive description of structural features and their significance.
- Explicitly state research questions in the introduction and systematically revisit them in the discussion and conclusion to reinforce the logical flow and key findings.
These adjustments will significantly enhance the overall readability and organization of the manuscript.
- Incorporating Additional Geomorphic Metrics
Comment: The study could benefit from including quantitative geomorphic indices such as Surface-Roughness, Hypsometric Integral, and Elevation-Relief Ratio to better characterize tectonic history.
Response: Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. We fully acknowledge the value of these geomorphic indices in characterizing tectonic processes, and will consider incorporating them in future investigations. However, given the focus of our stud, we have prioritized the metrics that best align with our research objectives. Specifically, in the revised manuscript, we will:
- Include river knickpoints, χ-map, and longitudinal river profile analysis to provide a more detailed assessment of fault reactivation and landscape evolution.
- Discuss how these selected metrics contribute to identifying tectonic uplift and active deformation zones.
By refining our existing analyses, we aim to maintain a focused yet comprehensive approach to investigating fault reactivation and landscape evolution.
- Climate Influence on Landscape Evolution
Comment: While climate is briefly mentioned, a more detailed discussion on the interaction between climate and tectonics (e.g., aridification, erosion rates) would strengthen the study.
Response: This is an excellent point. While our primary focus is on tectonic controls, we fully acknowledge that climate-induced erosion and sediment transport have played a role in shaping the landscape. To better integrate this aspect into our discussion, we will:
- Expand our analysis of climate-driven geomorphic processes, particularly focusing on the role of Cretaceous aridification in preserving low-relief surfaces.
- Incorporate references to regional climatic studies to provide a broader context for our interpretations.
Although a full quantitative climate analysis is beyond the scope of this study, we recognize the importance of this perspective and will ensure that these aspects are adequately addressed in the discussion.
- Strengthening Evidence for Fault Reactivation
Comment: The manuscript includes paleostress analysis and kinematic markers, which are important for reconstructing fault reactivation history. However, further clarification on their interpretation and relevance would strengthen the argument. Additionally, aligning the thermochronology results more explicitly with the structural observations and referencing relevant previous studies could enhance the overall discussion.
Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable comment. Our study already includes paleostress analysis and kinematic markers, which play a crucial role in reconstructing fault reactivation history. In the revised manuscript, we will:
- Provide a more detailed explanation of the paleostress analysis and kinematic indicators, ensuring their interpretation is clearly conveyed.
- Strengthen our discussion by referencing previous studies that document similar fault reactivation processes in the Eastern Tianshan.
- Clarify how our thermochronology results align with structural observations, reinforcing the interpretation of multi-phase fault activity.
These refinements will ensure a more comprehensive and well-supported discussion on fault reactivation while maintaining the study’s original scope.
Minor Comments
We acknowledge the minor comments regarding abstract restructuring, figure captions, and improvements to clarity in specific sections. We will carefully incorporate these suggestions to enhance readability and presentation.
Final Statement
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your constructive and thoughtful feedback, which has provided valuable directions for improving our study. We are confident that these revisions will significantly strengthen the clarity, coherence, and overall contribution of our study to the field.
Best regards,
Zihao Zhao
On behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tianyi Shen, 23 Mar 2025
Dear Malte Froemchen,
We greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating our work. Your feedback has been highly constructive and instrumental in improving the structure, clarity, and scientific rigor of our study. Below, we provide a point-by-point summary of the revisions made in response to your comments.
Major Revisions
- Refining the Structure and Logical Flow
To improve clarity and coherence, we have:
- Clearly separated the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections to ensure a structured and systematic presentation.
- Expanded the geomorphology and structural geology sections to provide a more comprehensive description of structural features and their significance.
- Explicitly stated the research questions in the introduction and systematically revisited them in the discussion and conclusion to enhance logical flow and reinforce key findings.
These revisions have significantly improved the manuscript’s readability and organization.
- Incorporation of Additional Geomorphic Metrics
To strengthen our geomorphic analysis, we have:
- Incorporated river knickpoint analysis, χ-maps, and longitudinal river profile analysis to provide a more detailed assessment of fault reactivation and landscape evolution.
- Expanded our discussion on how these selected metrics help identify tectonic uplift and active deformation zones.
While additional indices such as Surface-Roughness, Hypsometric Integral, and Elevation-Relief Ratio are valuable, we have prioritized metrics that best align with our study’s objectives. We acknowledge the potential of these indices for future investigations.
- Climate Influence on Landscape Evolution
We have enhanced our discussion on climate-tectonic interactions by:
- Expanding our analysis of climate-driven geomorphic processes, particularly emphasizing the role of Cretaceous aridification in preserving low-relief surfaces.
- Incorporating references to regional climatic studies to provide a broader context for our interpretations.
Although a full quantitative climate analysis remains beyond the scope of our study, we have ensured that these aspects are adequately addressed to provide a more balanced discussion.
- Strengthening Evidence for Fault Reactivation
To reinforce our arguments on fault reactivation, we have:
- Provided a more detailed explanation of the paleostress analysis and kinematic indicators to improve clarity.
- Strengthened our discussion by referencing previous studies documenting similar fault reactivation processes in the Eastern Tianshan.
- Clarified how our thermochronology results align with structural observations, further supporting the interpretation of multi-phase fault activity.
These refinements ensure a more comprehensive and well-supported discussion of fault reactivation while maintaining the study’s original scope.
Minor Revisions
In addition to addressing the major comments, we have implemented all suggested minor revisions, including:
- Restructuring the abstract for improved clarity.
- Refining figure captions for better readability.
- Enhancing specific sections to improve clarity and coherence.
Final Statement
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback. Your comments have significantly contributed to improving our study, and we are confident that the revised manuscript now better reflects the clarity, coherence, and impact expected in this field.
Best regards,
Tianyi Shen
On behalf of the co-authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3668-AC2
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 274 | 98 | 19 | 391 | 90 | 14 | 13 |
- HTML: 274
- PDF: 98
- XML: 19
- Total: 391
- Supplement: 90
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Zihao Zhao
Guocan Wang
Peter van der Beek
Yabo Zhou
Cheng Ma
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3420 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1224 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper