the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Nov 2023
High-precision 1′×1′ bathymetric model of Philippine Sea inversed from marine gravity anomalies
Abstract. The Philippine Sea, located at the edge of the Northwest Pacific Ocean, possesses complex seabed topography. Developing a high-precision bathymetric model for this region is of paramount importance as it provides fundamental geoinformation essential for Earth observation and marine scientific research, including plate motion, ocean circulation, and hydrological characteristics. The gravity-geologic method (GGM), based on marine gravity anomalies, serves as an effective bathymetric prediction technique. To further strengthen the prediction accuracy of conventional GGM, we introduce the improved GGM (IGGM). The IGGM considers the effects of regional seafloor topography by employing weighted averaging to more accurately estimate the short-wavelength gravity component, along with refining the subsequent modeling of long-wavelength gravity component. In this paper, we focus on seafloor topography modeling in the Philippine Sea based on the IGGM, combining shipborne bathymetric data with the SIO V32.1 gravity anomaly. To reduce computational complexity, the optimal parameter values required for IGGM are first calculated before the overall regional calculation, and then, based on the terrain characteristics and distribution of sounding data, we selected four representative local sea areas as the research objects to construct the corresponding bathymetric models using GGM and IGGM. The analysis indicates that the precisions of the IGGM models in four regions are improved to varying degrees, and the optimal calculation radius is 2′. Based on the above finding, a high-precision 1'×1' bathymetric model of the Philippine Sea (5° N–35° N, 120° E–150° E), known as the BAT_PS model, is constructed using IGGM. Results demonstrate that the BAT_PS model exhibits a higher overall precision compared to GEBCO, topo_25.1, and DTU18 models at single-beam shipborne bathymetric points.
-
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
(2606 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2606 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2132', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Nov 2023
This paper aims to create a precise bathymetric model for the Philippine Sea. It introduces the Improved Gravity-Geologic Method (IGGM) to enhance accuracy, considering regional seafloor topography effects. Shipborne bathymetric data and SIO V32.1 gravity anomaly are used for modeling. The paper introduces a compelling method, the IGGM method, for inverting the bathymetric model of the Philippine Sea, a region characterized by a complex marine environment and significant strategic importance. I recommend a moderate revision and the English expression needs to be polished. Please find detailed comments on the current MS below.
Specific Comments
- Line30: why are there two trench-like terrains at (140°E-150°E, 30°N-35°N) and (125°E-127°E, 27°N-30°N)? This is clearly not true.
- Line 43, please accurately list several GEBCO models.
- Line 126, in Eq. (2), how are parameters Δρ and D obtained?
- Line 139, in Eq. (3), what does the letter "k" represent here? What is the influence of this parameter on the accuracy of bathymetric model inversion?
- The elimination rate of data in Table 1 exceeds 1%, which will have an impact on the results of submarine terrain inversion.
- When calculating the short-wave gravity at any point i, the long-wave gravity is derived from the long-wave gravity field, calculated using the tension spline function, and subjected to cubic spline interpolation. This entire calculation process inevitably introduces calculation errors. Does the paper address any relevant methods to mitigate or handle these errors?
- Fig7: The image is low resolution and I can't see the distribution of the black pints.
- Fig9 (b) and (c): Unlike Fig8(c), the comparison between the GEBCO model and the GGM/IGGM model should be described as the absolute value of the difference.
- For the BAT_PS model and other reference models, there are still very large errors at some ship measurement points (Table 5). Can shipborne bathymetric data be used to further improve the accuracy of the model? For example, the difference at the ship measurement point can be added to the BAT model as a correction.
- Is it reasonable to determine the computational radius to be 2′ for the entire Philippine Sea area? In general, re-selecting the optimal value for each sub-region is required to obtain a locally optimal model.
- Line 287: How are the boundary points of each region treated? How are the subregions stitched together?
Technical corrections
- In line 47, the sentence "as compared to other observation methods" can be changed to "compared to alternative observation methods".
- In line 59, the first occurrence of 'SIO' should be provided in full.
- In lines 74-77, the sentence is too long to convey its meaning accurately.
- In line 100, please provide an accurate explanation for '3b' to ensure understanding for all readers.
- Line105： “is a continuous global terrain model”.
- Figure 3 needs to be redrawn, the text in the figure is not clear, and the flowchart logic is confused.
- Line218：Does “the total number of surrounding points within a 2′ radius centered on each shipborne point” include the centre point? The minimum value of colorbar in Fig7 starts at 2.
- Check the formatting of references, e.g. Lines 394, 402, 429, 437, 460.
- Line 153: “value” should be “values”.
- Line345： “were not utilized” should be deleted.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2132-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jinyun Guo, 13 Dec 2023
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2132', Richard Fiifi Annan, 15 Dec 2023
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jinyun Guo, 19 Dec 2023
Thanks for your comments and suggestion, we have uploaded the attachment in "Reply on RC2".
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2132-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jinyun Guo, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2132', Richard Fiifi Annan, 15 Dec 2023
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jinyun Guo, 19 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2132', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Nov 2023
This paper aims to create a precise bathymetric model for the Philippine Sea. It introduces the Improved Gravity-Geologic Method (IGGM) to enhance accuracy, considering regional seafloor topography effects. Shipborne bathymetric data and SIO V32.1 gravity anomaly are used for modeling. The paper introduces a compelling method, the IGGM method, for inverting the bathymetric model of the Philippine Sea, a region characterized by a complex marine environment and significant strategic importance. I recommend a moderate revision and the English expression needs to be polished. Please find detailed comments on the current MS below.
Specific Comments
- Line30: why are there two trench-like terrains at (140°E-150°E, 30°N-35°N) and (125°E-127°E, 27°N-30°N)? This is clearly not true.
- Line 43, please accurately list several GEBCO models.
- Line 126, in Eq. (2), how are parameters Δρ and D obtained?
- Line 139, in Eq. (3), what does the letter "k" represent here? What is the influence of this parameter on the accuracy of bathymetric model inversion?
- The elimination rate of data in Table 1 exceeds 1%, which will have an impact on the results of submarine terrain inversion.
- When calculating the short-wave gravity at any point i, the long-wave gravity is derived from the long-wave gravity field, calculated using the tension spline function, and subjected to cubic spline interpolation. This entire calculation process inevitably introduces calculation errors. Does the paper address any relevant methods to mitigate or handle these errors?
- Fig7: The image is low resolution and I can't see the distribution of the black pints.
- Fig9 (b) and (c): Unlike Fig8(c), the comparison between the GEBCO model and the GGM/IGGM model should be described as the absolute value of the difference.
- For the BAT_PS model and other reference models, there are still very large errors at some ship measurement points (Table 5). Can shipborne bathymetric data be used to further improve the accuracy of the model? For example, the difference at the ship measurement point can be added to the BAT model as a correction.
- Is it reasonable to determine the computational radius to be 2′ for the entire Philippine Sea area? In general, re-selecting the optimal value for each sub-region is required to obtain a locally optimal model.
- Line 287: How are the boundary points of each region treated? How are the subregions stitched together?
Technical corrections
- In line 47, the sentence "as compared to other observation methods" can be changed to "compared to alternative observation methods".
- In line 59, the first occurrence of 'SIO' should be provided in full.
- In lines 74-77, the sentence is too long to convey its meaning accurately.
- In line 100, please provide an accurate explanation for '3b' to ensure understanding for all readers.
- Line105： “is a continuous global terrain model”.
- Figure 3 needs to be redrawn, the text in the figure is not clear, and the flowchart logic is confused.
- Line218：Does “the total number of surrounding points within a 2′ radius centered on each shipborne point” include the centre point? The minimum value of colorbar in Fig7 starts at 2.
- Check the formatting of references, e.g. Lines 394, 402, 429, 437, 460.
- Line 153: “value” should be “values”.
- Line345： “were not utilized” should be deleted.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2132-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jinyun Guo, 13 Dec 2023
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2132', Richard Fiifi Annan, 15 Dec 2023
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jinyun Guo, 19 Dec 2023
Thanks for your comments and suggestion, we have uploaded the attachment in "Reply on RC2".
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2132-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jinyun Guo, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2132', Richard Fiifi Annan, 15 Dec 2023
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jinyun Guo, 19 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Model code and software
High-precision 1′×1′ bathymetric model of Philippine Sea inversed from marine gravity anomalies Dechao An https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8351399
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 234 | 83 | 20 | 337 | 7 | 7 |
- HTML: 234
- PDF: 83
- XML: 20
- Total: 337
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dechao An
Xiaotao Chang
Zhenming Wang
Yongjun Jia
Xin Liu
Valery Bondur
Heping Sun
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2606 KB) - Metadata XML