Holocene Activity of the Wudaoliang–Changshagongma Fault of the Eastern Tibetan Plateau
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review for Liang et al. “Holocene activity of the Wudaoliang-Changshagongma fault of the eastern Tibetan Plateau”, submitted to Remote Sensing.
This is an interesting manuscript on an active fault in the area of the eastern Tibetan Plateau. It is suitable for a wide audience. The datasets and figures are of high quality. The English is fine. The manuscript deserves to be published, but several points have to be considered and revised:
1. I wonder why the study was submitted to Remote Sensing. I do not see a distinct “remote sensing” aspect of the study. In the text it is stated that aerial photos were taken and DEMs were created and used to calculate e.g., fault displacement. These are rather standard applications that not really justify to submit a manuscript to this particular journal. I would expect a more indepth use of different remote sensing techniques and maybe also a kind of clear and significant advance in the use of remote sensing methods in paleoseismological studies. In the present form it is a standard paleoseismological study.
2. Abstract line 4: Please write “fault trace” not “fault track”. This should be changed in the entire manuscript e.g., in chapter 1 introduction last paragraph, as well as in chapter 3 and 4.
3. Introduction second paragraph: please write “gully displacement” not “gully dislocations”. The same should be modified in chaper 3 and throughout the entire manuscript. The term “dislocation” implies that the features are transported over a large distance. But I guess you mean that e.g., the gullies are “offset” or “displaced” for a couple of meters.
4. What is a fault trough? Do you mean a sag pond? Please specify.
5. You did not show any evidence for seismic events in the field data. The offset in the trenches is quite difficult to infer from the photos and if there is the offset as interpretd in the line drawings, then it could be also possible that this displacement was aseismic, caused by fault creep. Do you have any evidence for seismic activity such as soft-sediment deformation structure, sand volcanoes etc. that give a hint to the propagation of seismic wave?
6. The discussion needs to be modified and rewritten. In the present form it is not a discussion, it is more a summary of the results. A discussion is usually the core of a scientific paper. In a discussion, you can compare and reflect your results with results from previous studies either in your study area, or in comparable settings in another loaction. In a discussion, also the limitations of a study can be adressed. How accurate are e.g., the radiocarbon ages that were used?
7. Fig. 1: You need a better map of the study area that shows where the area is in the context of international borders of the surrounding countries.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have compied all the issues arised during the first review phase. The work now is ready to be pubblished
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Great thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions to the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in detail. The major reviews and the specific revisions for the manuscript are summarized as follows:
(1)We have revised the relevant content of the paper according to the comments.
(2)We have added the values of the slip rates of the faults within the Bayan Har Block in the discussion. However, the GPS values of the faults are not added. The reference[41] provides the motion rate of the block, not the fault slip rate. But, we have revised relevant sentences.
(3) We have checked that all references are relevant to the contents of the
manuscript.
