the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The crustal structure of the Lomgmenshan fault zone and its implications for seismogenesis: New insight from aeromagnetic and gravity data
Abstract. Although many geophysical models have been proposed in the Longmenshan fault zone (LFZ) and its surrounding areas, the deep structure of the seismic gap and its constraint of the Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes remain uncertain. Based on the compiled aeromagnetic data and Bouguer gravity data, we have tried to create a more detailed and visible magnetic and density model beneath the LFZ using 2D forward modeling and 3D inversion. The research shows that structure heterogeneities are widely distributed beneath the LFZ. The earthquake epicenters show high magnetic anomalies and the edge of high Bouguer gravity anomalies that consist of rigid blocks where apt to accumulate stress. However, the seismic gap shows low magnetic anomalies and transition of Bouguer gravity anomalies related to a weak zone. The Sichuan Basin has two NE-trending banded high magnetic blocks extending beneath the LFZ that firmly support the crust of the Sichuan Basin was downward subduction toward the LFZ. More importantly, the basement subducts to approximately 33 km west of the Wenchuan-Maoxian fault with a low dip angle beneath the middle segment of the LFZ, whereas the distance decreases to approximately 17 and 19 km under the southern segment. Thus, the crust of the Sichuan Basin beneath the middle segment extends farther than that beneath the southern segment with the seismic gap as the transition zone. Therefore, we propose that the structural heterogeneity of the basement on the western margin of the Sichuan Basin may be the main reason for the different focal mechanisms and geodynamics of the Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(18942 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(18942 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1119', Chuntao Liang, 03 Sep 2023
Based on the compiled aeromagnetic data and Bouguer gravity data, the study used 2D forward modeling and 3D inversion method to create a more detailed and visible magnetic and density model beneath the Longmenshan Fault Zone. There are plenty of seismic studies in this region, but aeromagnetic and Bouguer gravity studies are rare, therefore this study has its value to further understand the tectonic background of the Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes. I recommend to be published with minor revisions listed below.
Minor Questions:
- Line 83: “Triassic syntectonic adakitic-type granitoids are widely distributed in the SGB, which are likely sourced from the partial melting of an underlying Proterozoic basement that is part of the Sichuan Basin”. The Sichuan basement may extend further west beyond the LFZ, but I don’t think it can account for the “syntectonic adakitic-type granitoids”far west from the LFZ.
- Figure 1: add descriptions for the black lines (profiles? ), pink squares (measurement points?) to the captions.
- Figure 2b, 3a, 3b actually show that the anomaly across F6 (Longquan fault) are different. On Figure 3b, the values are positive (>3) and negative (<-7) to the west and east of the F6. On figure 4, the F6 is also a feature to separate low/high gravity. These observations are contrary to your interpretation on Line 225 that the F6 is a shallow fault.
- Theobvious magnetic discontinuous distributed from Daofu and Danba to Chengdu is interpreted as a concealed fault. If look at the Figure 3, the trace of this discontinuity may actually continue to the south of Nanchong. There are other discontinuities too, but only this one is interpreted as a concealed fault? This feature doesn’t show up on the gravity map (Figure 4). do you have other evidences to support your interpretation?
- Figure 4a, please add numbers to the color scale; Figure 4a and 4b, the blue boxes are seismic gap? Please describe in the caption.
- Line 345: “Two earthquakes lie in high magnetic areas from 20 to 40 km”.The depths of the two earthquakes are less than 20km. This statement could be misleading.
- Figure 11, the HMB2 could be the Leshan-Longnvshi uplift as mentioned by Liu et al. (2021, Earth Science Review, title: Tectonic evolution of the Sichuan Basin, Southwest China).
- The paper outlines three models on Lines54-57, then what’s the difference between your model and the other three models? More specifically, what’s the difference between your model and Liang et al. (2018)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1119-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hai Yang, 02 Oct 2023
Comment from Author to Reviewer 1
We thank Chuntao Liang for his very thoughtful and knowledgeable comments. Based on the changes due to raised issues we believe that the manuscript has improved significantly. The detailed replies are listed in the supplement file.
Kind regards,
Hai Yang
On behalf of the authors
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1119', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Sep 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1119/egusphere-2023-1119-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hai Yang, 02 Oct 2023
Comment from Authors to Reviewer 2
We thank Reviewer 2 for their very constructive comments. We believe that the comments and changes based on them have completed and improved the manuscript and we will certainly use the suggestions for future work. The detailed replies are listed in the supplement file.
Kind regards,
Hai Yang
On behalf of the authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hai Yang, 02 Oct 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1119', Chuntao Liang, 03 Sep 2023
Based on the compiled aeromagnetic data and Bouguer gravity data, the study used 2D forward modeling and 3D inversion method to create a more detailed and visible magnetic and density model beneath the Longmenshan Fault Zone. There are plenty of seismic studies in this region, but aeromagnetic and Bouguer gravity studies are rare, therefore this study has its value to further understand the tectonic background of the Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes. I recommend to be published with minor revisions listed below.
Minor Questions:
- Line 83: “Triassic syntectonic adakitic-type granitoids are widely distributed in the SGB, which are likely sourced from the partial melting of an underlying Proterozoic basement that is part of the Sichuan Basin”. The Sichuan basement may extend further west beyond the LFZ, but I don’t think it can account for the “syntectonic adakitic-type granitoids”far west from the LFZ.
- Figure 1: add descriptions for the black lines (profiles? ), pink squares (measurement points?) to the captions.
- Figure 2b, 3a, 3b actually show that the anomaly across F6 (Longquan fault) are different. On Figure 3b, the values are positive (>3) and negative (<-7) to the west and east of the F6. On figure 4, the F6 is also a feature to separate low/high gravity. These observations are contrary to your interpretation on Line 225 that the F6 is a shallow fault.
- Theobvious magnetic discontinuous distributed from Daofu and Danba to Chengdu is interpreted as a concealed fault. If look at the Figure 3, the trace of this discontinuity may actually continue to the south of Nanchong. There are other discontinuities too, but only this one is interpreted as a concealed fault? This feature doesn’t show up on the gravity map (Figure 4). do you have other evidences to support your interpretation?
- Figure 4a, please add numbers to the color scale; Figure 4a and 4b, the blue boxes are seismic gap? Please describe in the caption.
- Line 345: “Two earthquakes lie in high magnetic areas from 20 to 40 km”.The depths of the two earthquakes are less than 20km. This statement could be misleading.
- Figure 11, the HMB2 could be the Leshan-Longnvshi uplift as mentioned by Liu et al. (2021, Earth Science Review, title: Tectonic evolution of the Sichuan Basin, Southwest China).
- The paper outlines three models on Lines54-57, then what’s the difference between your model and the other three models? More specifically, what’s the difference between your model and Liang et al. (2018)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1119-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hai Yang, 02 Oct 2023
Comment from Author to Reviewer 1
We thank Chuntao Liang for his very thoughtful and knowledgeable comments. Based on the changes due to raised issues we believe that the manuscript has improved significantly. The detailed replies are listed in the supplement file.
Kind regards,
Hai Yang
On behalf of the authors
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1119', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Sep 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1119/egusphere-2023-1119-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hai Yang, 02 Oct 2023
Comment from Authors to Reviewer 2
We thank Reviewer 2 for their very constructive comments. We believe that the comments and changes based on them have completed and improved the manuscript and we will certainly use the suggestions for future work. The detailed replies are listed in the supplement file.
Kind regards,
Hai Yang
On behalf of the authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hai Yang, 02 Oct 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
451 | 101 | 26 | 578 | 12 | 11 |
- HTML: 451
- PDF: 101
- XML: 26
- Total: 578
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Hai Yang
Shengqing Xiong
Qiankun Liu
Fang Li
Zhiye Jia
Xue Yang
Haofei Yan
Zhaoliang Li
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(18942 KB) - Metadata XML