Assessment of the Tectonic Activity of the Muong La–Bac Yen–Cho Bo Fault (Northwest Vietnam) by Analysis of Geomorphological Indices
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI suggest to publish the manuscript
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe new manuscript has been revised in accordance with the various clarifications requested. In my opinion the work can now be published.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssatisfactory revision
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language is ok
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper deals with the evaluation of active tectonic activity of a fault zone located in Vietnam. To my mind, the paper lacks of interest because is based on the application of general geomorphic indices to test the tectonic activity of one fault zone. One fault zone, which is active because it produces seismicity.
First, the title is not well written: "Assessment the Tectonic Activity of the Fault According to the Results of Analysis of Geomorphological Indices, Applied to the Muong La - Bac Yen - Cho Bo Fault Zone in 4 Northwest Vietnam" The title es redundant and lacks of interest.
The introduction is quite general. It could be improved by including other natural examples, or better describing the tectonic setting...
The methodology is poor and obsolate. The geomorphic indices here presented were innovative some decades ago. The paper must inlcude new analyses based on normalized indices (SLk, Pérez-Peña et al., 2009) and new indices such as X (Royden and Perron, 2013) or others.
Because of the lack of a proper methodology, I think that results are too poor to be published. More results are needed. In addition to more geomorphic indices, more seismic data must be included. For example, the location of recent earthquakes along the fault zone. Besides, structural data are quite important in this paper. They should be represented in one stereoplot and the main kinematics should be described.
One important point is the fault trace in Fig. 5. This is quite strange to find one fault with this anomalous trace to create this Ls. The Ls are not well delimited and are not related with main fault planes.
The discussion is also improvable. A discussion of how this fault zone is congruent with the tectonic setting could improve the interest of the paper. The discussion now is only based on a seismic fault is active because of geomorphic indices. Must be improved.
Overall, the paper must be rewritten according to these suggestions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish must be also improved. Sentences are to long and difficult to understand. Here one example: "The results of calculating geomorphological index Vf indicate the differentiation on both walls and along the ML-BT-CB fault: on the right wall of the fault, Vf value is low (mostly lower than 0.5), which is characterized by actively uplifted terrain of Tu Le block in the modern period; on the left wall and the south of the fault, Vf value differs due to complicatedly dissected terrain. "
Please, make more readable the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee the attached report.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper by Thu Hang et al. deals with the geomorphological analysis of a fault zone, using geomorphic indexes that are interpreted in terms of fault activity, according to common-use techniques and analysis in tis kind of work. The paper is concise, well written and provides new information about the behavior of the fault. From the geomorphological point of view reasonings are well developed. I find, however, that there is some information missing in the paper, namely the geological background. There is no information (that is normally expressed in maps) about the geology of the region, that imposes some constraints on the interpretation of profiles. A geological map and geological cross-sections are needed to correctly interpret the activity of the fault.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview for Hang et al. “ Assessment the Tectonic Activity of the Fault According to the Results of Analysis of Geomorphological Indices, Applied to the Muong La - Bac Yen - Cho Bo Fault Zone in Northwest Vietnam”. This is an interesting manuscript on the geomorphology and neotectonic evolution of faults in NW Vietnam. It is suitable for a wide audience in geoscience fields such as structural geology and paleoseismology. However, it requires a very thorough major revision to make it appropriate for publication. I have listed the most important points that have to be fixed before the manuscript could be considered for publication. I encourage the authors to revise their manuscript, because it has the potential to become a valuable contribution.
1. Line 19: What are “…walls of the fault zone.”? Line 22: “…two walls of the studied fault.” Please specify. This also occurs in Line 27 and 298. A fault zone commonly consists of a fault core (where the main strain occurs) and a flanking damage zone on both sides of the core (that is characterized by fractured material).
2. Line 21. What is the “Neotectonic period”. Do you mean that the faults show neotectonic activity? Please specify.
3. Line 33-36: The reference (1) is not suitable here. Please use more appropriate and diverse international literature.
4. Line 40: There should be more divers and international literature cited on that topic, too.
5. Line 58: What do you mean with “…Northwest structural plan…”? I do not understand the meaning. Please rephrase.
6. Line 60-61: Please rephrase this sentence to: “However, studies on the neotectonics and active tectonics of the fault zone are lacking…”
7. Line 64-65: Delete “…activity during the young and modern tectonic period…”.
8. Line 247: What do you mean with “…sedimentary formations…”. The term formation is clearly defined. You should rephrase it to “…Quaternary sediments…”
9. You describe strike-slip faults in the text (e.g., line 245-248). Please confirm this, e.g., on the basis of laterally offset rivers.
10. Line 56-257: “…the normal dextral slip…”. Is it “normal” or “strike-slip” or has it both components?
11. Fig. 9 (a), (b): I do not see indications for normal slip movements on the photos. I can only see strike-slip striations.
12. You should show fault plane solutions to support your study, e.g., in Line 287-288.
13. You need to provide a better map in Fig. 1 that shows the entire country of Vietnam with boxes that indicate the location of the study area. Based on the figures that are provided in the manuscript, the reader is not able to understand, where the study was conducted.
14. The discussion (chapter 4.2.) needs to be modified. Especially, the part in the lines 265 – 283 is in the present form not a discussion, it is more or less a results chapter. A discussion is usually the core of a scientific paper, so much more reflection is expected in this chapter. In a discussion, you can compare and reflect the results of your study with results from previous studies, either in your study area, or in comparable setting in other areas (or other faults) of the world. The discussion contains only three different citations (Ref. 14, 17 and 24), a much more extensive literature reflection is necessary to match international standards. In a discussion, also the limitations of a study should be addressed. What are the limitations of the methods and the remote sensing data that you used?