Geophysical Study of the Diendorf-Boskovice Fault System (Austria)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting and comprehensive investigation. I do not know many studies where such a large set of different geophysical methods was applied.

However, this paper needs some revision.

(1) In the Introduction some additional sources can be added:

Blakely, R.J., 1996. Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge, UK.

Eppelbaum, L.V., 2019. Geophysical Potential Fields: Geological and Environmental Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam – N.Y

(2) I propose that all maps should be presented in International coordinates. 

(3) Figure 8b & c must be additionally explained.

(4) The same - Figure 9c.

(5) Figure 10 - obviously the key figure of the conducted research should be

described more fully. 

(6) Do authors have some petrophysical data for the area under study?

Author Response

We are glad to know that the Reviewer found our contribution interesting. We sincerely consider this feedback to be positive.

1: In the Introduction some additional sources can be added:

Blakely, R.J., 1996. Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge, UK.

Eppelbaum, L.V., 2019. Geophysical Potential Fields: Geological and Environmental Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam – N.Y

Following the suggestion of the reviewer, we added the two references.

2. I propose that all maps should be presented in International coordinates.

Thank you. All Figures have been modified according to the reviewer’s suggestion, and now maps are presented in international coordinate.

3. Figure 8b & c must be additionally explained. The same - Figure 9c.

Following the suggestion of the reviewer, we added some sentences in the main text to describe and explain with more details Figures 8b-c and of Figure 9c.

4. Figure 10 - obviously the key figure of the conducted research should be described more fully.

We thank the reviewer for this remark and in agreement with him we expanded the discussion about Figure 10 in the main text.

5. Do authors have some petrophysical data for the area under study?

We understand the reviewer’s interest in petrophysical data and we have to agree on the importance of having these data available. Unfortunately, we do not own petrophysical data for the studied area. However, to fill this gap we added the following references:

• Zych, D. Messungen der erdmagnetischen Vertikalintensität und Suszeptibilitätsuntersuchungen durch die ÖMV-AG als Beitrag zur Kohlenwasserstoffexploration in Österreich“, Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG) Publikation 1985, Vienna, Austria (in German).
• Hösch, K.; Steinhauser, P. Gesteinsphysikalische Untersuchungen in der östlichen Böhmischen Masse Niederösterreichs“, project report of Bund/Bundesländer-Rohstoffprojekt N-C-006b/81 1985, Vienna, Austria (in German).
• Duma, G.; Jilg, W. Gesteinsdichten und magnetische Suszeptibilitäten im österreichischen Anteil der Böhmischen Masse Final report Poject P7186-GEO 1991, Geological survey of Austria (in German).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I enjoyed reading your well structured, pure geophysical work and I propose minor revision based on the following comments:

1. It would be very informative for the reader to add a general comment in the label of Figures  3, 4, 5 and 6 where you present the datasets of the different geophysical methods applied in your study. Generally, it is good, figures to be standalone in the text. In addition, please keep in mind that this work will be read by scientists not related to geophysics. So, you have to provide more information in the labels of the figures.
   The interpretation of your results based on already published data is o.k for me. However, I believe that in a future research with a smaller line spacing (Table 2) you will reveal more informative results. You have to add some comments concerning a future geophysical research in this area. 
   Section Discussion - conclusions: What is the correlation in percentage of a) the geology (at least considering the known, mapped geological faults) with each geophysical method applied in your study and b) among the geophysical methods?

Kind regards

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his positive feedback that we really appreciate.

1. It would be very informative for the reader to add a general comment in the label of Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 where you present the datasets of the different geophysical methods applied in your study. Generally, it is good, figures to be standalone in the text. In addition, please keep in mind that this work will be read by scientists not related to geophysics. So, you have to provide more information in the labels of the figures. 
   

   We thank the reviewer for the helpful remark. Following his suggestion we rewrote the captions of Figure 3, 4, 5 and 6, to make them more informative and to better describe their contents.

2. The interpretation of your results based on already published data is o.k for me. However, I believe that in a future research with a smaller line spacing (Table 2) you will reveal more informative results. You have to add some comments concerning a future geophysical research in this area.
   
   

   Thank you. Following this suggestion, the revised manuscript includes some comments regarding future, more detailed surveys.

3. Section Discussion - conclusions: What is the correlation in percentage of a) the geology (at least considering the known, mapped geological faults) with each geophysical method applied in your study and b) among the geophysical methods?
   
   

   We thank the reviewer for this remark, as it gives us the opportunity to improve clarity on this subject.

   We found that in the western region of the surveyed area, almost all the EHD gravity maxima are well-correlated with already known geological structures; in the eastern/central sectors of the map, instead, half of the EHD gravity maxima identify previously unknown structures (Figure 7a). We also remarked that, being each geophysical methodology sensitive to specific physical parameters, the correlation among the results from different methods and between geology and the different geophysical outcomes is strongly dependent on lithological features of the surveyed area.