ETAS Space–Time Modeling of Chile Triggered Seismicity Using Covariates: Some Preliminary Results

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper shows an interesting extension of the   ETAS model applied to the Chile case. Results demonstrate that a mulivariate approach can improve the ETAS fitting of  the evento sequences.

Few notes:m

1)In the equation of the induced intensity the variable NU is not defined.

2) Results of figure 9 could be described with some few more details.

 

 

Author Response

Point-to-point responses are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thanks for your work, I suggest the attached comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point-to-point responses are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments and recommendations for corrections should be considered as a contribution to increase the quality of the manuscript before its publication.

1) The authors need to provide a strong argument here to show their novelty contributed to the field, the entire readership and the research community. The innovation of this paper should be better highlighted.

2) All figures need to be improved… (In particular, I suggest adding in figure 3: an outline map of South America with Chile highlighted; the Nazca, South American and Antarctic plates; a geological cross-section of the study area, the metric scale; the latitude and longitude; the symbol legend; etc…. the new figure 3 could also be divided into two or more different parts (A, B, …)…

3) terminology is very important and should be improved in agreement with literature…  for example: the term “induced seismicity” is used when referring to seismic events caused partially or completely by human activities….
Do the authors analyze seismic events caused partially or completely by human activities?
I suggest the following articles to the authors to improve their manuscript:
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060948
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-014-0980-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2017.11.015

4) lines 75 – 77: The authors: “Earthquakes deeper than 70 km are excluded because they occur within the continental plate in the crust”….this sentence is conceptually incorrect…

5) Line 89: the authors: “standard errors 0.0104 and 0.005”… The authors should provide the same degree of uncertainty for the standard errors…

6) Line 92: depth???? altitude/elevation above sea level (a.s.l.)

7) Lines 97-98: Why didn't the authors also consider the “z” altitude/elevation? 

Author Response

Point-to-point responses are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for addressing all comments in a new revised version of the paper.

The Paper looks very completed as a Preliminary study