The Tectonic Significance of the Mw7.1 Earthquake Source Model in Tibet in 2025 Constrained by InSAR Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssee attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
|
Comments 1: P1L28: comment: DMCF needs to be spelled full when first time appears. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a description of the full name for the DMCF abbreviation in lines 28-29 of the abstract section on the first page. |
|
Comments 2: P3L107: Table 1. comment: it might be useful to give a brief description of the method CEA used for the source parameter derivation. |
|
Response 2: Agree. We have added a description of the rapid inversion of seismic moment tensors (optimal double-couple model) based on broadband waveform data from mainland China in lines 56-61 of the first paragraph on the second page of the paper. |
|
Comments 3: P4L145: question: was the tropospheric correction applied in the processing scheme? If not, what practical impact is expected? Comment: the atmosphere over this high elevation region is usually thin and dry, implying less moisture air over along the path of the signals therefore less tropospheric delay. |
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to the questions raised by experts, we described in lines 163-166 on page 5 of the paper that this study did not employ tropospheric correction. The reason is that the study area is located in a high-altitude region where the air is thin and dry, resulting in a minimal impact on the SAR phase, which does not affect the accuracy of co-seismic deformation extraction. Therefore, this study did not use GACOS data for atmospheric phase delay correction. |
|
Comments 4: P7L216: suggest: ‘where d(m) represents …’ ‐> ‘for equation (3) below, d(m) presents …’. Comment: alternatively, move equation (3) up before where d(m) represents … |
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have updated the description of d(m) on page seven, lines 234-235 of the paper. |
|
Comments 5: P8L241: comment: the fonts are too small, difficult for senior to read. Suggest slightly enlarge if possible. |
|
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have made modifications to Figure 4 on page 8, line 257 of the paper, increasing the font size to ensure that the text labels in Figure 4 are clearly visible. |
|
Comments 6: P9L275: comment: it is beyond ‘quite good’. It is very good if not extremely good. |
|
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised the statement on page nine, line 294 of the paper, changing "quite good" to "extremely good." |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUsing data from Sentinel 1, the authors determine the co-seismic displacements caused by the Mw 7.1 earthquake in Dingri County, Tibet, on January 7, 2025. In the presence of many faults, the authors identify the presumed fault responsible for the earthquake. They also do a regional earthquake hazard assessment. In Figure 4, the texts are very small in size and are not readable well. The publication will be interesting for readers.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: In Figure 4, the texts are very small in size and are not readable well. The publication will be interesting for readers. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have made modifications to Figure 4 on page 8, line 257 of the paper, increasing the font size to ensure that the text labels in Figure 4 are clearly visible. |
