Slip Models of the 2016 and 2022 Menyuan, China, Earthquakes, Illustrating Regional Tectonic Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors used the Senitnel-1 SAR data to derive interseismic velocity filed across the LLLF and coseismic deformation fields of 2016 and 2022 Menyuan earthquakes. They also inverted the coseismic slip models, calculated the CFS and investigated the triggering relationship between 2016 and 2022 events. The manuscript is well-written and suitable for the RS. But the following issues should be well addressed before publication.

1) The title is about “triggering relationship”, but the authors found that there was no direct triggering relationship between these two events in the abstract. So I suggest the title should be modified. The word “triggering relationship” should be removed.

2) In Figure 1a, some main fault traces should be labeled.

3) The caption of section 2 should be “Data and Methods”.

4) In the InSAR interseismic velocity field (section 2.1), how did the authors consider the coseismic and postseismic effects of the 2016 event?

5) The colormap of Figure 6 should be modified. The color of zero slip (background) should be consistent with the color of minimal slip. The white color seems very strange.

6) There are some significant difference on slip distribution between the study and previous results. The authors should do some comparison on different slip models in the discussion.

7) The following references should be considered:

He, P., C. Liu, Y. Wen, X. Hu, K. Ding, and C. Xu (2022). The 2022 Mw 6.6 Menyuan Earthquake in the Northwest Margin of Tibet: Geodetic and Seismic Evidence of the Fault Structure and Slip Behavior of the Qilian–Haiyuan Strike-Slip Fault, Seismol. Res. Lett. doi: 10.1785/0220220192.

Li, Y.; Jiang, W.; Li, Y*.; Shen, W.; He, Z.; Li, B.; Li, Q.; Jiao, Q.; Tian, Y. Coseismic Rupture Model and Tectonic Implications of the January 7 2022, Menyuan Mw 6.6 Earthquake Constraints from InSAR Observations and Field Investigation. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2111. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14092111

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript does an interesting demonstration on the Slip models and the triggering relationship between the 2016 and 2022 Menyuan, China, earthquakes, illustrating regional tectonic structures. Introduction is good, however suggested inclusion of additional information and modifications will definitely improve the standard and quality of the article. Very interesting data set and very good data analysis.

 

As the article provides a good body of work, suggested inclusion of additional information and modifications/corrections will definitely improve the standard and quality of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presented by Donglin Wu and coworkers is a great contribution in the understanding of the regional geodynamics and seismic behavior of two recent earthquakes.

Besides a variety of minor orthographic errors and or forms of expressions, the text is fluently and logically, based on a nice data set and fine illustrations. Mentioning that, I would recommend to add the graphics of the supplementary data into the main document. Within the entire document the stress related factors are adequately described and interpreted, however, I doubt the interpretation of the subterranean / upper crustal continuations of all demonstrated faults such as the Menyuan, the LLLF, NLLLF, as well as the MYDMYF as highly speculative and therefore also their relationship as indicated in their conjunction especially in Fig. 9 and the corresponding interpretative text at which most of the section of the discussion is based on (4.1 and 4.2). In fact, if we may speak of any weak points of the manuscript, it would be obviously the discussion, which is first of all way to short and secondly, there is a whole part missing where the given data are mot related or compared to similar studies.

Therefore, besides my recommendation to

1)    add the information of the supplementary data into the main document

I would also suggest to

2)    add more related studies in the introduction section

3)    re-write extending the discussion section by adding alternative interpretation of the relationship of the different geological faults and their stress behavior

4)    relate the own data and findings with similar areas of similar geodynamic settings and outcomes

5)    re-formulate the conclusions avoiding a single paragraph by expressing what you reached, what you failed and what should be done based in future based on your study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx