Rapid riparian ecosystem recovery in low-latitudinal North China following the end-Permian mass extinction

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a very well-written paper presenting interesting findings related to the recovery following the end-Permian event in continental settings, from N China. The finding is timely as the topic is actively discussed in the scientific community. The data provides additional insights into the faunal, and partly, floral global recovery following the EPE, adding to the global picture.

Strengths:

The conclusions are supported by an impressive amount of sedimentological and paleontological data (mainly trace fossils) and illustrations.

Weaknesses:

The occurrence of MISS (Microbially Induced Sedimentary Structures) could be discussed more in detail as these provide interesting information directly linked to the delayed recovery of the biota.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

A rapid recovery of the ecosystems during the late Early Triassic, in the aftermath of the end-Permian mass extinction, is discussed based on different types of fossils.

Strengths:

The combined study of invertebrate trace fossils, tetrapod bones, and plant remains together with their stratigraphic distribution in different sections provides a convincing case to support a rapid recovery as the authors hypothesize.

Weaknesses:

The study is based on three regions with Triassic successions from the North China block. While a first-hand study of other localities of similar age would be ideal, this is of course a difficult task. Instead, the authors provide comparisons with other worldwide regions to build their case and support the initial hypothesis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Guo and colleagues features the documentation and interpretation of three successions of continental to marginal marine deposits spanning the P/T transition and their respective ichnofaunas. Based on these new data inferences concerning end-Permian mass extinction and Triassic recovery in the tropical realm are discussed.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well-written and organized and includes a large amount of new lithological and ichnological data that illuminate ecosystem evolution in a time of large-scale transition. The lithological documentations, facies interpretations, and ichnotaxonomic assignments look okay (with a few exceptions).

Weaknesses:

Some interpretations in Table 1 could be questioned: For facies association FA2 the interpretation as „terrestrial facies with periodical flooding" should be put into the right column and, given the fossil content, other interpretations, such as "marine facies" or "lagoonal environment" with some plant debris and (terrestrial) animal remains washed in, could also be possible. For FA3 the statement "bioturbation is absent" is in conflict with the next statement "strata are moderately reworked". For FA5 the observation of a "monospecific ichnoassemblage" contradicts the listing of several ichnotaxa.

Concerning the structure of the manuscript, certain hypotheses related to the end-Permian mass extinction and the process of the P/T extinction and recovery, namely the existence of a long-persisting "tropic dead zone" are introduced as a foregone conclusion to which the new data seemingly shall be fit as corroborating evidence. Some of the data - e.g. the presence of a supposedly Smithian-age ichnofauna are interpreted as a fast recovery shortening the duration of the "tropic dead zone" episode - but these interpretations could also be interpreted as contradicting the idea of a "dead zone" sensu stricto in favour of a "normal" post-extinction environment with low diversity and occurrence of typical disaster taxa. Due to their large error bars the early Triassic radiometric ages did not put much of a constraint on the age determination of the earliest post-extinction ichnofaunas discussed here.

Considering the somewhat equivocal evidence and controversial ideas about the P/T transition, the introduction could be improved by describing how the idea of a "tropic dead zone" arose against the background of earlier ideas, alternative views, and conflicting data. In the discussion section, alternative interpretations of the extensive data presented here - e.g. proximal-distal shifts in lithofacies with respect to the sediment source, sea level changes, preservation bias, the local occurrence of hostile environments instead of a regional scale, etc. should be discussed, also to avoid the impression that the author's conclusion was driven by confirmation bias.

Contrary to the authors' claim, Figures S7 and S8 suggest that burrow size does not vary much within the studied sections. Size decreases and increases in the Shichuanhe and Liulin sections do not contemporaneously, are usually within the error-bar range, and might be driven by ichnotaxa composition, i.e. the presence or absence of larger ichnotaxa, rather than by size changes in the same ichnotaxon (and producer group). Here the measurement data would be needed as well to check the basis of the authors' interpretations.

Some arthropod tracks assigned here to Kouphichnium might not represent limulid traces but other (non-marine) arthropod taxa in accordance with their occurrence in terrestrial facies/non-marine units of the succession. More generally, the ichnotaxonomy of arthropod trackways is not yet well reserved - beyond Kouphichnium and Diplichnites various similar-looking types may occur that can have a variety of distinct insect, crustacean, millipede, etc. producers (including larval stages).