The Source Characteristics of the Mw6.4, 2016 Meinong Taiwan Earthquake from Teleseismic Data Using the Hybrid Homomorphic Deconvolution Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear,
Your paper "The Source Characteristics of the Mw6.4, 2017 Meimong Tai-2 wan Earthquake from Teleseismic Data Using the Hybrid Homomorphic Deconvolution Method" is excellent research. I have some minor suggestions regarding the introduction part. I suggest you add the literary review part with more previous studies related to your research subject, separately from the introduction.
Kind regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Your paper "The Source Characteristics of the Mw6.4, 2017 Meimong Tai-2 wan Earthquake from Teleseismic Data Using the Hybrid Homomorphic Deconvolution Method" is excellent research. I have some minor suggestions regarding the introduction part. I suggest you add the literary review part with more previous studies related to your research subject, separately from the introduction.
Response 1: We have added the literary review part to the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript (ms), Liao et al. present the analysis of teleseismic data from the 2017 Mw6.4 Meimong earthquake (EQ) by means of the Hybrid Homomorphic Deconvolution (RHD) method.
The paper is well-written, the results are very interesting and compatible with independent observations (aftershock hypocenter distribution, INSAR, distribution of damage around the epicenter, and the damage from the 2010 ML 6.4 Jiasian EQ).
The presentation, however, needs improvement on the following points:
1)The following improvement should be necessarily made: In page 2, line 74, the authors write: “…inverted the source model of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake (Japan; Mw 9.0) to obtain..” This portion should be extended as follows for the sake of the readers’ better information: “…inverted the source model of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake (Japan; Mw 9.0), whose epicentral location could be estimated in advance [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 986-989] by means of natural time analysis of Japanese seismicity [Europhysics Letters (EPL) 2010, 91, 59001; J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics 2014, 119, 9192-9206], to obtain..”
2)The authors should make an explicit reference to the RHD method in Section 2 so as to make clear its use in the ms.
3)The figures should appear within the Section they are referred to for the first time.
4)The following mainly typing mistakes should be corrected:
- · L.17 “km2”-> “km^2”
- · Please reword the sentence “It may concern with the other mechanisms not only solely depend on the source model.” In lines 22-23 to better convey the meaning.
- · L.29 “cm.” -> “cm/s.”
- · L.30 “agreed” -> “agree” , “the Jiasian” -> “the 2010 Jiasian”
- · Empty spaces should be introduced (because they are missing) in lines 145,152, 158, 182, 246, 249, 257, 260, 351, and 357.
- · L.220 “5cm smaller” -> “5cm, which is smaller”
- · L.248 “longitude of N120.3° to N120.4° and latitude of E22.85° to E23.1°” -> “longitude of E120.3° to E120.4° and latitude of N22.85° to N23.1°”
- · L.290 “4. Conclusions” -> “4. Discussion and Conclusion”
- · On page 10, Figure 5, the letter “g” appears cut in the x-axis label.
- · On page 11, Figure 7, please describe the white circles in the figure caption.
- · On page 13, Figure 9, please increase the visibility of the dashed line. It is hardly discernable.
- · In the References, please do not repeat the reference number.
In summary, I will be glad to suggest the publication of an appropriately revised version of the ms along the four points mentioned above.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We would first like to thank the reviewer for the highly constructive comments. After careful consideration, these suggestions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.
To be more specific, in the revised manuscript, some changes have been made in the text, as underlines with red words. In the following, the reviewer’s comments are presented along with the corresponding replies.
Point 1: The following improvement should be necessarily made: In page 2, line 74, the authors write: “…inverted the source model of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake (Japan; Mw 9.0) to obtain..” This portion should be extended as follows for the sake of the readers’ better information: “…inverted the source model of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake (Japan; Mw 9.0), whose epicentral location could be estimated in advance [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 986-989] by means of natural time analysis of Japanese seismicity [Europhysics Letters (EPL) 2010, 91, 59001; J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics 2014, 119, 9192-9206], to obtain..”
Response 1: We have modified and added the references to our paper.
Point 2: The authors should make an explicit reference to the HHD method in Section 2 so as to make clear its use in the ms.
Response 2: We have made a section of HHD in the paper to make it clear.
Point 3: The figures should appear within the Section they are referred to for the first time.
Response 3: We have moved the figures to the places they are referred in the paper.
Point 4: The following mainly typing mistakes should be corrected:
- L.17 “km2”-> “km^2”
Response 4: We have modified the typo in the paper.
Point 5: Please reword the sentence “It may concern with the other mechanisms not only solely depend on the source model.” In lines 22-23 to better convey the meaning.
Response 5: We have modified the sentence as ‘’It reveals that there are the other mechanisms to affect the vertical deformation, rather than only depends on the source model.’’
Point 6: L.29 “cm.” -> “cm/s.”
- L.30 “agreed” -> “agree” , “the Jiasian” -> “the 2010 Jiasian”
- Empty spaces should be introduced (because they are missing) in lines 145,152, 158, 182, 246, 249, 257, 260, 351, and 357.
- L.220 “5cm smaller” -> “5cm, which is smaller”
- L.248 “longitude of N120.3° to N120.4° and latitude of E22.85° to E23.1°” -> “longitude of E120.3° to E120.4° and latitude of N22.85° to N23.1°”
- L.290 “4. Conclusions” -> “4. Discussion and Conclusion”
Response 6: We have modified the typos in the paper.
Point 7: On page 10, Figure 5, the letter “g” appears cut in the x-axis label..
Response 7: We have modified Figure 5 in the paper.
Point 8: On page 11, Figure 7, please describe the white circles in the figure caption
Response 8: We have added the description of the circles. The circles represent the aftershocks of Meinong earthquake.
Point 9: On page 13, Figure 9, please increase the visibility of the dashed line. It is hardly discernable.
Response 9: We have modified Figure 9 in the paper.
Point 10: In the References, please do not repeat the reference number.
Response 10: We have deleted the redundant reference number in the references.
