Discontinuous Surface Ruptures and Slip Distributions in the Epicentral Region of the 2021 Mw7.4 Maduo Earthquake, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. How to make sure the factures capture by the UAV are earthquake-induced ruptures rather than the fissure induced by the shaking?

2. Coseismic displacements measured from the UAV images in the figure 11 lack of strictness. The readers cannot get the scientificity and authenticity from just these figures. The author should supply detailed information about the offset makers, measuring process, error and confidence level of each data.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work used optical UAV remote sensing images to investigate surface rupture of the 2021 Maduo earthquake. In general, the method is not novel, and results is not clearly presented. There is a lack of quantitative analysis of your results. It seems the authors only present their photos as it was. In the discussion section, please elaborate significance of this work. Please also describe significance of remote sensing in this work.

Although the work is divided into different sections, every part of the work seems very swollen. Readers of this journal probably have difficulties in following its logic thread.

 

Blurred figures in maps. For example, the elevation lends in Fig. 1.

Please add caption for Fig. 2c.

Numbers in rose diagrams of Fig. 3 is vague.

The left vertical axis title should be capitalized in the first letter.

Please add authors' affiliations and mark the corresponding author and his/her email.

Font size of latitude/longitude annotations should be the same.

The research gap is unclear. I cannot find why authors do this work from the Introduction. Please re-structure this part of the paper at least.

Legends of surface displacements is inappropriate. The current legend spans from 1- m to 10 m. However, the real maximum deformation might be much smaller. That is why deformation results in Fig. 2 and Fig. 12 is hard to tell its magnitude.

Fig. 2c should be placed in the results section instead of the Data and Methods part.

 

Please calculate and show displacements integrated from the EW and NS directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of this paper is to study the discontinuous surface ruptures, as well as the slip distributions in the epicentral region of the 2021 Mw7.4 Maduo earthquake (China). In particular, the detailed mapping and classification of the 2021 Maduo earthquake surface fractures and slip measurements in the epicentral region are presented, while both the parallel and perpendicular components of the horizontal coseismic slip and the width of the fault deformation zone were acquired. Finally, the percentage of off-fault deformation that diffused into the adjacent zone of the surface rupture was evaluated by comparing the slip distribution from the optical image correlation with discrete field measurements.

This is an interesting and well-structured paper. All necessary sections (Introduction, Geologic Setting, Data and Methods, Surface ruptures and coseismic slip distributions in the epicentral region, Discussion and Conclusion) have been considered. Moreover, the “Surface ruptures and coseismic slip distributions in the epicentral region” and “Discussion” 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:

·         Abstract: 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.

·         Introduction: The first paragraph of the “Introduction” section, which analyzes the fault geometrical complexities, lacks more recent/updated references. Typical papers, in which the corresponding information can be obtained and optionally be cited, are the following:

1. Mildon, Z. K., Toda, S., Faure Walker, J. P., & Roberts, G. P. (2016). Evaluating models of Coulomb stress transfer: Is variable fault geometry important? Geophysical Research Letters, 43(24). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071128,

2. Toda, S., & Enescu, B. (2011). Rate/state Coulomb stress transfer model for the CSEP Japan seismicity forecast. Earth, Planets and Space, 63(3), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.01.004. Please, apply.

3. Sboras, S., Pavlides, S., Kilias, A., Galanakis, D., Chatziioannou, A., & Chatzipetros, A. (2022). The Geological Structure and Tectonic Complexity of Northern Thessaly That Hosted the March 2021 Seismic Crisis. Geotechnics, 2(4), 935-960.

·         Geologic Setting: This section should be renamed into “Geological and Geodynamic Setting”. Moreover, the greatest part of the first paragraph of this section includes an analysis of the active blocks of the study area. However, no Figures have been included to show the spatial distribution of these blocks and their relationship with the tectonically active faults. Please, include the corresponding Figure.

·         Figure 2: Please, provide a more detailed description in the Figure 2 caption.

·         Figure 5: Please, provide this Figure in  higher resolution. It includes many blurry parts in its current form.

·         Figure 8b: A scale should be included in this Figure. Please, apply.

·         Figure 11: Please, remove the words “Photos depicting” from the Figure 11 caption.

·         Figure 13 a & b: Please, remove the words “illustrates the” and “presents the” from the Figure 13 a & b captions, respectively.

·         Figure 13 c: Please, replace “compares” with “Comparison between”.

·         Figure 14: Please, remove the words “illustrates the” from the Figure 14 caption.

·         Figure 15: Please, remove the words “displays the” from the Figure 15 caption.

·         Conclusion: The “Conclusion” section should be modified. In its current form it resembles an abstract rather than conclusions. This section should be comprehensive, while the major findings of the paper should be highlighted. Maybe, numbering of the concluding remarks could be performed. Please, apply.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is good. I dont have any comments. I think the revised manuscript is good for accept.