Typical Fine Structure and Seismogenic Mechanism Analysis of the Surface Rupture of the 2022 Menyuan Mw 6.7 Earthquake

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1  Chapter 3 Data and Methods, especially 3.1 Data acquisition and process should be described in detail, especially the references and sources of some methods are too brief. It is recommended to add relevant references or method introductions，such as SfM, DOM, DEM.

2  Since the drone aerial detection method is combined with traditional methods such as manual field inspections, it is recommended to compare the error of the two methods, especially the resolution advantages and adaptability of the new drone aerial detection method compared to traditional methods. Is it possible for future technology to replace manual field inspections.

The conclusion should not only be about earthquakes, but also include conclusions on data processing methods and innovative points.

Author Response

We are grateful to reviewer #1 for his/her effort in reviewing our paper and his/her positive feedback. The summary of our work as written by this reviewer is precise. Here below we address the questions and suggestions raised by reviewer #1.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

(Question-1) Chapter 3 Data and Methods, especially 3.1 Data acquisition and process should be described in detail, especially the references and sources of some methods are too brief. It is recommended to add relevant references or method introductions，such as SfM, DOM, DEM.

Response: 

We provided a more detailed description of the data acquisition and processing procedures according to the reviewers' suggestions in the article. At the same time, we explained the abbreviations SfM, DEMs, and DOMs in the text and added references.(line 186-202, 214-216)

 

(Question-2) Since the drone aerial detection method is combined with traditional methods such as manual field inspections, it is recommended to compare the error of the two methods, especially the resolution advantages and adaptability of the new drone aerial detection method compared to traditional methods. Is it possible for future technology to replace manual field inspections.

Response: 

In our article, we introduced the advantages and adaptability of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) aerial detection methods compared to traditional methods, based on the suggestions of the reviewers. We also compared the advantages and shortcomings of the two methods. Currently, due to the complexity of terrain in different regions and the issue of resolution affected by UAVs, there is no alternative to on-site inspections.(line 240-253)  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

(Question-1) The conclusion should not only be about earthquakes, but also include conclusions on data processing methods and innovative points.

Response:

We added conclusions on data processing methods and innovative points according to the suggestions of the reviewers in the article.(line 543-546)

 

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

- The Ms  is lacked focal mechanism of Menyuan eq. on the maps 1 &2

 - Regards to the Figure 10, we can't propose fault segmentation?

 

 - By using V dis. + H. dis. & slope dip values, concerning to the fault plane's geometry as well as Rake angle, would be nice if auteurs calculate the Net slip displacement on the fault plane too!

 

A minor revision would be nice on re writing some sentences, which may allow to avoid repeat some words (ex. : we conducted); or using the words in a better arrangement (ex.: Distribution map of .....)

Author Response

We are grateful to reviewer #2 for his/her effort in reviewing our paper and his/her positive feedback. The summary of our work as written by this reviewer is precise. Here below we address the questions and suggestions raised by reviewer #2.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(Question-1)  The Ms  is lacked focal mechanism of Menyuan eq. on the maps 1 &2

Response:

We added the focal mechanism of the Mengyuan earthquake provided by UCGS in Figure 1 and Figure 2 according to the reviewer's suggestion.(line 56, 136)

 

(Question-2) Regards to the Figure 10, we can't propose fault segmentation?

Response:

We distinguished the faults in Figure 10, representing the main fault and branch faults with different widths of lines.(line 421)

 

(Question-3) By using V dis. + H. dis. & slope dip values, concerning to the fault plane's geometry as well as Rake angle, would be nice if auteurs calculate the Net slip displacement on the fault plane too!

Response: 

We used the sliding angle results of the Wang et al. (2023) study to calculate the net slip displacement on the fault plane, combined with the maximum ground surface displacement we obtained.(line 455-467)

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

(Question-4) A minor revision would be nice on re writing some sentences, which may allow to avoid repeat some words (ex. : we conducted); or using the words in a better arrangement (ex.: Distribution map of .....)

Response:

We have rewritten and highlighted some of the English text in the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

1.     The authors extensively summarized previous works on the Menyuan earthquake rupture in lines 72-93. To enhance the manuscript's clarity, it would be valuable to explicitly state which information from these works is incorporated into the current study based on field investigations. Additionally, considering the quantity of models discussed, it may be helpful to present this information in a table format for easy reference.

 

2.     Possibility of Deep Crust Ruptures. It is essential to consider the possibility of deep crust ruptures with maximum displacement, potentially leading to less observable surface ruptures. Address this concern in the manuscript to avoid potential misinterpretations from the field survey findings.

 

3.     Nodal Plane Parameters Terminology. Line 69 indicates the authors used "Trend, Inclination, and Sliding corner" to describe the focal mechanism parameters in Table 1. It is worth noting that the more commonly used terminology for these parameters is "Strike, Dip, and Rake." The authors should consider adopting the standard terminology to avoid confusion for readers.

 

4.     Missing Information in Appendix Table. Line 493 indicates that the Appendix table lacks necessary information about the table itself. Please ensure the table's details are adequately included to make it self-explanatory.

 

Typos:

Line 62: "AFT" should be corrected to "ATF" for accuracy.

 

Line 410: The word "band" seems to be a typo and should be replaced with "bend" for clarity.

 

 

In conclusion, the manuscript presents valuable research findings on the Menyuan earthquake rupture. However, addressing the points outlined above will further improve the clarity and accuracy of the study. I commend the authors for their thorough investigation and analysis and look forward to seeing the revised version.

Author Response

We are grateful to reviewer #3 for his/her effort in reviewing our paper and his/her positive feedback. The summary of our work as written by this reviewer is precise. Here below we address the questions and suggestions raised by reviewer #3.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

(Question-1) The authors extensively summarized previous works on the Menyuan earthquake rupture in lines 72-93. To enhance the manuscript's clarity, it would be valuable to explicitly state which information from these works is incorporated into the current study based on field investigations. Additionally, considering the quantity of models discussed, it may be helpful to present this information in a table format for easy reference.

Response:

We summarized the previous research in the article, drew Table 2, and added our research results to the table.

 

 

(Question-2)  Possibility of Deep Crust Ruptures. It is essential to consider the possibility of deep crust ruptures with maximum displacement, potentially leading to less observable surface ruptures. Address this concern in the manuscript to avoid potential misinterpretations from the field survey findings.

Response:

The displacement we obtain is on the surface rupture zone, theoretically, the underground rupture is transmitted to the surface, which will definitely decrease with the attenuation of energy, and at the same time, the process of transmitting to the surface will also produce a dispersion deformation zone, the displacement of the dispersion zone obtained must be larger, but in fact we have no way to obtain the maximum displacement generated near the earthquake source, only by referring to the maximum displacement calculated by InSAR data.

 

(Question-3) Nodal Plane Parameters Terminology. Line 69 indicates the authors used "Trend, Inclination, and Sliding corner" to describe the focal mechanism parameters in Table 1. It is worth noting that the more commonly used terminology for these parameters is "Strike, Dip, and Rake." The authors should consider adopting the standard terminology to avoid confusion for readers.

Response:

We have made modifications to the professional vocabulary in Table 1 according to the suggestions of the reviewers.

 

(Question-4) Missing Information in Appendix Table. Line 493 indicates that the Appendix table lacks necessary information about the table itself. Please ensure the table's details are adequately included to make it self-explanatory.

Response:

We have re-edited and supplemented the tables in the appendix of the article.

In addition, we have made corrections to the Typos in the text.

Reviewer 4 Report

The objective of this paper is to conduct an integrated investigation, combining emergency surveys and mapping investigations, while high-resolution remote sensing images were additionally obtained from UAVs to interpret and accurately determine the parameters of the earthquake rupture zones, including the number, length, and maximum displacement.  Moreover, the earthquake's seismogenic structure, mechanism, and tectonic significance was discussed.

This is an interesting and well-structured paper. All necessary sections (Introduction, Geological setting, Data and Methods, Details and geometry of the surface rupture of the Menyuan earthquake, Summary of the surface co-seismic offset, Discussion on seismogenic mechanism, Conclusion) have been considered. Moreover, the “Data and Methods”, “Details and geometry of the surface rupture of the Menyuan earthquake” and “Summary of the surface co-seismic offset” sections are divided into sub-sections, providing additional details. Furthermore, all Figures, Tables and Diagrams are consistent with the analysis provided in the manuscript. However, some changes should be implemented, which will improve the paper. In particular:

Lines 12-31: Although the abstract has been properly structured, unnecessary details are contained (these details could be placed in the manuscript). The abstract should be clear and concise, while the most significant processes/findings/conclusions should be highlighted. Please, modify the abstract by reducing its length.

Line 38: The reference number is not correct. Similarly, all reference numbers throughout the paper are not correct. Please, modify them.

Line 101: At the beginning of the “Geological setting” section, I suggest adding a brief paragraph, describing the geodynamic regime of the wider area. Typical papers, in which the corresponding information can be obtained and optionally be cited, are the following: 1. Kamranzad, F., Memarian, H., Zare, M., 2020. Earthquake Risk Assessment for Tehran, Iran. ISPRS Int J Geoinf 9, 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9070430, 2. Laurenti, L., Tinti, E., Galasso, F., Franco, L., Marone, C., 2022. Deep learning for laboratory earthquake prediction and autoregressive forecasting of fault zone stress. Earth Planet Sci Lett 598, 117825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2022.117825,  3. Sboras, S., Lazos, I., Mouzakiotis, E., Karastathis, V., Pavlides, S., Chatzipetros, A., 2020. Fault modelling, seismic sequence evolution and stress transfer scenarios for the July 20, 2017 (M W 6.6) Kos–Gökova Gulf earthquake, SE Aegean. Acta Geophysica 68, 1245–1261. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11600-020-00471-8. Please, update and include the corresponding references.

Line 199: Please, provide Figure 4 in a higher resolution. Moreover, provide a more detailed description in the caption, please.

Line 264: Please, provide Figure 5 in a higher resolution. It contains blurry parts in the current form.

Line 475: The “Conclusion” section is the seventh one in the paper. Please, change the numbering from 6 to 7.

 

Author Response

We are grateful to reviewer #4 for his/her effort in reviewing our paper and his/her positive feedback. The summary of our work as written by this reviewer is precise. Here below we address the questions and suggestions raised by reviewer #4.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(Question-1)Lines 12-31: Although the abstract has been properly structured, unnecessary details are contained (these details could be placed in the manuscript). The abstract should be clear and concise, while the most significant processes/findings/conclusions should be highlighted. Please, modify the abstract by reducing its length.

Response:

We have abbreviated the abstract according to the reviewer's suggestions.(line 12-27)

(Question-2)Line 38: The reference number is not correct. Similarly, all reference numbers throughout the paper are not correct. Please, modify them.

Response:

We have made corrections to all the errors in the numbering in the article.

(Question-3)Line 101: At the beginning of the “Geological setting” section, I suggest adding a brief paragraph, describing the geodynamic regime of the wider area. Typical papers, in which the corresponding information can be obtained and optionally be cited, are the following: 1. Kamranzad, F., Memarian, H., Zare, M., 2020. Earthquake Risk Assessment for Tehran, Iran. ISPRS Int J Geoinf 9, 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9070430, 2. Laurenti, L., Tinti, E., Galasso, F., Franco, L., Marone, C., 2022. Deep learning for laboratory earthquake prediction and autoregressive forecasting of fault zone stress. Earth Planet Sci Lett 598, 117825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2022.117825,  3. Sboras, S., Lazos, I., Mouzakiotis, E., Karastathis, V., Pavlides, S., Chatzipetros, A., 2020. Fault modelling, seismic sequence evolution and stress transfer scenarios for the July 20, 2017 (M W 6.6) Kos–Gökova Gulf earthquake, SE Aegean. Acta Geophysica 68, 1245–1261. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11600-020-00471-8. Please, update and include the corresponding references.

Response:

We have carefully read the literature recommended by the reviewers and believe that it is not very suitable for citation in terms of dynamics. At the same time, we have added literature on the dynamics research of the Tibet Plateau in accordance with the reviewers' suggestions in the article.(line 102-109)

(Question-4)Line 199: Please, provide Figure 4 in a higher resolution. Moreover, provide a more detailed description in the caption, please.

Response:

We have replaced the photo in Figure 4 with a clearer image.

(Question-5)Line 264: Please, provide Figure 5 in a higher resolution. It contains blurry parts in the current form.

Response:

We have replaced the photo in Figure 5 with a clearer image.

(Question-6)Line 475: The “Conclusion” section is the seventh one in the paper. Please, change the numbering from 6 to 7.

Response:

We have made changes to the error code.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No Comment!

Reviewer 3 Report

I highly compliment the authors' efforts and recommend accepting the manuscript for publication. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Most of the corrections have been implemented.

Therefore, the paper can be accepted in its current form.