The crustal magma reservoir geometry and seismic activity beneath the Wudalianchi volcano in northeast China: Implications for the multilevel magmatic system

Lü, Ziqiang; Kong, Qinghan; Lei, Jianshe; Ai, Yinshuang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127

Preprints

30 Jan 2025

| 30 Jan 2025

The crustal magma reservoir geometry and seismic activity beneath the Wudalianchi volcano in northeast China: Implications for the multilevel magmatic system

Ziqiang Lü, Qinghan Kong, Jianshe Lei, and Yinshuang Ai

Abstract. Understanding the spatial correlation between crustal magma reservoir and seismicity is crucial for investigating the dynamics of volcanic systems. However, due to the relatively low resolution of existing crustal tomography, especially for the middle-lower crustal magma reservoir, it is still difficult to accurately characterize the crustal magma system beneath the Wudalianchi volcano in northeast China. Here, we present a high-resolution 3-D shear-wave velocity crustal model obtained by applying full-wave ambient noise tomography. High-quality empirical Green's functions are extracted from ambient seismic noise at periods of 3–20 s based on 30 latest broadband seismic stations throughout the Wudalianchi volcano. Our new tomographic model reveals a distinct low-velocity body located at depths of ~10–23 km below the Wudalianchi volcano, suggesting the presence of a magma reservoir in the middle-lower crust, which establishes an important link for better understanding of the magma evolution processes. Additionally, the geometry of observed magma reservoir, together with the earthquake distribution, provides new insights into the magmatic activity of the active Wudalianchi volcano. The magma ascent from the potential middle-lower crustal magma reservoir might exert pressure on the overlying brittle crust, resulting in the generation of the earthquakes below the Wudalianchi volcano. The presence of partial melting could make the strength of the surrounding rocks more susceptible to ductile deformation, suggesting that the earthquake nucleation is more difficult within the interior of the crustal magma reservoir beneath the WDLC volcano.

Received: 12 Jan 2025 – Discussion started: 30 Jan 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1834 KB)

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 (1834 KB)

Supplement (630 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

08 Sep 2025

The crustal magma reservoir geometry and seismic activity beneath the Wudalianchi volcano in northeast China: implications for the multilevel magmatic system

Ziqiang Lü, Qinghan Kong, Jianshe Lei, and Yinshuang Ai

Solid Earth, 16, 807–818, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-807-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-807-2025, 2025

Short summary

Ziqiang Lü, Qinghan Kong, Jianshe Lei, and Yinshuang Ai

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-127', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Mar 2025

This is a review for the manuscript entitled “The crustal magma reservoir geometry and seismic activity beneath the Wudalianchi volcano in northeast China: Implications for the multilevel magmatic system” by Lü et al. This study conducts a new high-resolution model using a finite-frequency, full-wave method with a dense seismic network. The results show clear improvements in imaging the crustal magmatic structure of the Wudalianchi volcanic region compared to previous images. Notably, they identify a distinct magma reservoir in the middle-lower crust and propose potential connections within the magmatic system, from its deeper root to the shallow pre-eruptive reservoir. The data, methods and results appear robust, and the manuscript is interesting and well written. I have some suggestions and therefore suggest a minor revision. Please see the detailed comments below:
In the method section, Vp in the inversion helps with constraints of both shallow and deep structure. I wonder what the shallow Vp structure looks like. Can the author comment on this?
Currently, the melt fraction of the middle-lower crustal magma chamber is calculated based on velocity perturbation instead of absolute velocity. Based on a dense seismic network, this study conducts a higher resolution model, and the full-wave method should provide a much better constraints to the absolute velocity. The result in absolute velocity may give a more precise estimate of the melt fraction
In Figure S1, the temporal variation of the seismic activity seems to overlap. Multiple seismic events occur within a similar timeframe. An M-T diagram would be helpful for understanding the seismic behavior.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', ziqiang lyu, 28 Mar 2025
  
  #Reviewer1
  This is a review for the manuscript entitled “The crustal magma reservoir geometry and seismic activity beneath the Wudalianchi volcano in northeast China: Implications for the multilevel magmatic system” by Lü et al. This study conducts a new high-resolution model using a finite-frequency, full-wave method with a dense seismic network. The results show clear improvements in imaging the crustal magmatic structure of the Wudalianchi volcanic region compared to previous images. Notably, they identify a distinct magma reservoir in the middle-lower crust and propose potential connections within the magmatic system, from its deeper root to the shallow pre-eruptive reservoir. The data, methods and results appear robust, and the manuscript is interesting and well written. I have some suggestions and therefore suggest a minor revision. Please see the detailed comments below:
  In the method section, Vp in the inversion helps with constraints of both shallow and deep structure. I wonder what the shallow Vp structure looks like. Can the author comment on this?
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. Rayleigh waves are most sensitive to P-wave velocity at shallow depths, and a strong correlation is observed between the P-wave velocity anomaly and the regional faults at 3 km depth. However, the P-wave velocity structure is not well constrained at 11 km depth in comparison with the shear-wave structure due to the limited resolution. Text and figures have been updated in the revised manuscript.
  Currently, the melt fraction of the middle-lower crustal magma chamber is calculated based on velocity perturbation instead of absolute velocity. Based on a dense seismic network, this study conducts a higher resolution model, and the full-wave method should provide a much better constraints to the absolute velocity. The result in absolute velocity may give a more precise estimate of the melt fraction
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the melt fraction estimation based on absolute velocity. Figure has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  In Figure S1, the temporal variation of the seismic activity seems to overlap. Multiple seismic events occur within a similar timeframe. An M-T diagram would be helpful for understanding the seismic behavior.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the M-T diagram in the revised manuscript. The M-T diagram shows that microseismic activities have gradually increased since 2021. This heightened seismic activity is likely indicative of continuous magma movement within the middle-lower crustal reservoirs.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-127', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Mar 2025
Lü et al. presents a high-resolution 3D shear-wave velocity model beneath the Wudalianchi (WDLC) volcano in northeast China using full-wave ambient noise tomography. They analyzed data from 30 broadband seismic stations deployed around the WDLC volcano to image the crustal structure with improved resolution compared to previous studies. Their key finding is a distinct low-velocity body at depths of ~10-23 km, interpreted as a middle-lower crustal magma reservoir. The data, methods, and results appear robust, and the manuscript is well-written. I have some minor comments.
Similar results (low-velocity zones beneath the Songliao Basin and beneath the WDLC volcano) have already been obtained by Lü et al. (2024b). While the authors mentioned in the Introduction section that the resolution is lower than in the present study, there does not seem to be a significant difference overall. Additional explanation should be provided to establish the novelty of this research more clearly.

Given that WDLC had its last eruption in the 18th century and is considered an active volcano, it would be beneficial to discuss more explicitly the implications for volcanic hazard assessment.

As shown in Figures 8 and S5, while the low-velocity zone beneath the Songliao Basin has also been estimated in previous studies, the low-velocity zone directly beneath the WDLC volcano appears unclear in previous study results. Section 4.1 primarily focuses on discussing differences in methodology, but could the authors also mention the contribution of their use of a larger number of seismometers?

Could there be further discussion about the time scale and supply volume of magma transport processes between each reservoir in the multi-level magma system (Figure 9)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', ziqiang lyu, 28 Mar 2025
  
  #Reviewer2
  Lü et al. presents a high-resolution 3D shear-wave velocity model beneath the Wudalianchi (WDLC) volcano in northeast China using full-wave ambient noise tomography. They analyzed data from 30 broadband seismic stations deployed around the WDLC volcano to image the crustal structure with improved resolution compared to previous studies. Their key finding is a distinct low-velocity body at depths of ~10-23 km, interpreted as a middle-lower crustal magma reservoir. The data, methods, and results appear robust, and the manuscript is well-written. I have some minor comments.
  1. Similar results (low-velocity zones beneath the Songliao Basin and beneath the WDLC volcano) have already been obtained by Lü et al. (2024b). While the authors mentioned in the Introduction section that the resolution is lower than in the present study, there does not seem to be a significant difference overall. Additional explanation should be provided to establish the novelty of this research more clearly.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. The improved resolution model reveals detailed features of the low-velocity zones, providing insights into the geometry of the crustal magma reservoir, a more accurate estimation of the melt fraction, and a clearer understanding of its spatial correlation with seismic activity. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  2. Given that WDLC had its last eruption in the 18th century and is considered an active volcano, it would be beneficial to discuss more explicitly the implications for volcanic hazard assessment.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. We assess potential volcanic hazards by integrating the temporal activity patterns of microseismic events with the spatial correlation of low-velocity anomalies. The observed seismic activity, particularly above the middle-lower crustal magma reservoir, may serve as an important precursor to future volcanic unrest. Since 2021, the frequency of microseismic events has shown a notable increase, indicating a progressive intensification of magmatic activity beneath the volcano. This increased seismicity likely points to ongoing magma migration and the pressurization of the middle-lower crustal reservoirs. Therefore, sustained monitoring is essential for detecting precursory signals of potential eruptions, understanding the dynamics of magmatic activity, and mitigating volcanic hazards. We have expanded the discussion in the revised manuscript.
  3. As shown in Figures 8 and S5, while the low-velocity zone beneath the Songliao Basin has also been estimated in previous studies, the low-velocity zone directly beneath the WDLC volcano appears unclear in previous study results. Section 4.1 primarily focuses on discussing differences in methodology, but could the authors also mention the contribution of their use of a larger number of seismometers?
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. The dense array provides better coverage and higher sensitivity to small-scale velocity anomalies, enabling us to clearly delineate the low-velocity zone directly beneath the WDLC volcano. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  4. Could there be further discussion about the time scale and supply volume of magma transport processes between each reservoir in the multi-level magma system (Figure 9)?
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. Individual magma reservoir in the upper crust reaches local thermal equilibrium within 10³ years. In contrast, large igneous systems could persist for 10⁵ to 10⁷ years (Cashman et al., 2017). Given that the last eruption of the WDLC volcanoes was ~300 years ago, the upper crustal magma reservoir may be continuously supplied by the observed middle-lower crustal magma reservoir. K–Ar dating results reveal that the Wudalianchi volcano has erupted about 30 times in the past 1 Ma (Wang & Chen, 2005), which preliminarily implies that magma transport to a shallow reservoir may require ~30 ka. In the future, more geochemical and modeling approaches are required to further evaluate magma transport processes in the multi-level magma system. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-127', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Mar 2025

Lû et al. target the shallow-mid crustal magmatic systems beneath the Wudalianchi Volcano in NE China, interesting intraplate volcanism with significant debate on the source origin. To do this, they adopt full-wave ambient noise tomography to seismic data from ~30 stations in the region and derive 3D shear-wave velocity structures from the surface down to 25 km depth. The main finding is a generally low-velocity body beneath the volcano at 10-23 km depth and was interpreted as a mid-crustal magmatic reservoir driving the volcano's activity. The manuscript is well-written, and high-quality figures are used. However, I have a few significant comments regarding the methods and discussion for the authors to consider when preparing their revisions.
L34: what is the context for the statement of “as one of the youngest volcanoes”? Is this in NE China, across China or something else?
Section 2 and Figure 3: For the cross-correlation functions, how are the waveforms fitted in the inversion? Are there any specific time windows targeted, or are all correlation functions? At the low-frequency end, 3-7 s and 5-10s, there appear to be multiple phases in the cross-correlation functions (Figures 3a-3b). How are the complex phases handled in the fitting process? In addition, please include waveform fitting plots to show the general quality of their model.
Section 3: the authors conducted checkerboard tests and one specific synthetic test to assess the resolution and recovery of their data and methods. These are very useful results, but they tell little information about the vertical smearing effects of their inversion. I suggest adding one or two synthetic tests, similar to the test shown in Figure S3, but putting the low-velocity anomalies at both shallower and deeper depths. The new tests would offer more insights into the robustness of their depth constraints on the mid-crustal reservoir, which is very important information for their model interpretations.
Section 4.1: the comparison plot summarized in Figure 8 is nice. However, it lacks a context of the existing studies. Could the authors add a paragraph to summarize the differences in methods, data used and other significant differences? In addition, the authors should include their own 2024 study for comparison as well. It appears that their 2024 paper uses the same methods but even more stations compared to this study in the region. A detailed justification is required to see significant improvement for a separate study in this paper.
Section 4.3: in the schematic model, the authors included the shallow-crust reservoir imaged by a previous study of Li et al. (2016). The authors should consider including a paragraph or two to explain why such a shallow reservoir is missing in their own model. Is this due to the data used or some of the wave complexities containing such information in this study, but they are not considered in the inversion?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', ziqiang lyu, 28 Mar 2025
  
  #Reviewer3
  Lû et al. target the shallow-mid crustal magmatic systems beneath the Wudalianchi Volcano in NE China, interesting intraplate volcanism with significant debate on the source origin. To do this, they adopt full-wave ambient noise tomography to seismic data from ~30 stations in the region and derive 3D shear-wave velocity structures from the surface down to 25 km depth. The main finding is a generally low-velocity body beneath the volcano at 10-23 km depth and was interpreted as a mid-crustal magmatic reservoir driving the volcano's activity. The manuscript is well-written, and high-quality figures are used. However, I have a few significant comments regarding the methods and discussion for the authors to consider when preparing their revisions.
  L34: what is the context for the statement of “as one of the youngest volcanoes”? Is this in NE China, across China or something else?
  R. Corrected.
  Section 2 and Figure 3: For the cross-correlation functions, how are the waveforms fitted in the inversion? Are there any specific time windows targeted, or are all correlation functions? At the low-frequency end, 3-7 s and 5-10s, there appear to be multiple phases in the cross-correlation functions (Figures 3a-3b). How are the complex phases handled in the fitting process? In addition, please include waveform fitting plots to show the general quality of their model.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. During the inversion, the cross-correlation coefficient between the synthetics and observed EGFs is required to be at least 0.6, and the observed EGFs are selected with a signal-to-noise ratio threshold of 4. The targeted time windows of Rayleigh waves are calculated with their typical minimum and maximum shear velocity of 2.5 km/s and 5 km/s. We minimize the discrepancies between the synthetics and EGFs with amplitude normalization applied to account for amplitude fluctuations. We have added waveform fitting in the Supporting Information. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  Section 3: the authors conducted checkerboard tests and one specific synthetic test to assess the resolution and recovery of their data and methods. These are very useful results, but they tell little information about the vertical smearing effects of their inversion. I suggest adding one or two synthetic tests, similar to the test shown in Figure S3, but putting the low-velocity anomalies at both shallower and deeper depths. The new tests would offer more insights into the robustness of their depth constraints on the mid-crustal reservoir, which is very important information for their model interpretations.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. We have conducted a new synthetic test to assess the resolution. Figure has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  Section 4.1: the comparison plot summarized in Figure 8 is nice. However, it lacks a context of the existing studies. Could the authors add a paragraph to summarize the differences in methods, data used and other significant differences? In addition, the authors should include their own 2024 study for comparison as well. It appears that their 2024 paper uses the same methods but even more stations compared to this study in the region. A detailed justification is required to see significant improvement for a separate study in this paper.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. In comparison with recent shear-wave velocity models from traditional ambient noise tomography (Figs. 8 and S8), such as Shen et al. (2016), Fan et al. (2021), Chen et al. (2021), and Song et al. (2025). The traditional ambient noise tomography is based on the ray-based inversion method and assumes that the Rayleigh wave phase velocity is mainly sensitive to shear wave velocity. Due to wavefront healing (Nolet & Dahlen, 2000), the recovered shear-wave anomalies could be decreased by a factor of two or more (Maguire et al., 2022). Additionally, our deployment of a denser seismic network yields a higher crustal resolution compared to previous regional models (Shen et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2021). Moreover, compared to the model of Lü et al. (2024b), we retrieve higher-frequency signals that enhance the sensitivity to shallow structure. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  Section 4.3: in the schematic model, the authors included the shallow-crust reservoir imaged by a previous study of Li et al. (2016). The authors should consider including a paragraph or two to explain why such a shallow reservoir is missing in their own model. Is this due to the data used or some of the wave complexities containing such information in this study, but they are not considered in the inversion?
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. The signal-to-noise ratio of the observed EGFs is relatively lower at short periods due to the wave complexity. Consequently, the shallow reservoir is not well defined due to the sparse ray-path coverage at short periods. Furthermore, with a lateral resolution of ~27 km, our model cannot confidently image small-scale crustal reservoirs with a scale of a few kilometers as reported by Li et al. (2016). Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-127', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Mar 2025

This is a review for the manuscript entitled “The crustal magma reservoir geometry and seismic activity beneath the Wudalianchi volcano in northeast China: Implications for the multilevel magmatic system” by Lü et al. This study conducts a new high-resolution model using a finite-frequency, full-wave method with a dense seismic network. The results show clear improvements in imaging the crustal magmatic structure of the Wudalianchi volcanic region compared to previous images. Notably, they identify a distinct magma reservoir in the middle-lower crust and propose potential connections within the magmatic system, from its deeper root to the shallow pre-eruptive reservoir. The data, methods and results appear robust, and the manuscript is interesting and well written. I have some suggestions and therefore suggest a minor revision. Please see the detailed comments below:
In the method section, Vp in the inversion helps with constraints of both shallow and deep structure. I wonder what the shallow Vp structure looks like. Can the author comment on this?
Currently, the melt fraction of the middle-lower crustal magma chamber is calculated based on velocity perturbation instead of absolute velocity. Based on a dense seismic network, this study conducts a higher resolution model, and the full-wave method should provide a much better constraints to the absolute velocity. The result in absolute velocity may give a more precise estimate of the melt fraction
In Figure S1, the temporal variation of the seismic activity seems to overlap. Multiple seismic events occur within a similar timeframe. An M-T diagram would be helpful for understanding the seismic behavior.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', ziqiang lyu, 28 Mar 2025
  
  #Reviewer1
  This is a review for the manuscript entitled “The crustal magma reservoir geometry and seismic activity beneath the Wudalianchi volcano in northeast China: Implications for the multilevel magmatic system” by Lü et al. This study conducts a new high-resolution model using a finite-frequency, full-wave method with a dense seismic network. The results show clear improvements in imaging the crustal magmatic structure of the Wudalianchi volcanic region compared to previous images. Notably, they identify a distinct magma reservoir in the middle-lower crust and propose potential connections within the magmatic system, from its deeper root to the shallow pre-eruptive reservoir. The data, methods and results appear robust, and the manuscript is interesting and well written. I have some suggestions and therefore suggest a minor revision. Please see the detailed comments below:
  In the method section, Vp in the inversion helps with constraints of both shallow and deep structure. I wonder what the shallow Vp structure looks like. Can the author comment on this?
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. Rayleigh waves are most sensitive to P-wave velocity at shallow depths, and a strong correlation is observed between the P-wave velocity anomaly and the regional faults at 3 km depth. However, the P-wave velocity structure is not well constrained at 11 km depth in comparison with the shear-wave structure due to the limited resolution. Text and figures have been updated in the revised manuscript.
  Currently, the melt fraction of the middle-lower crustal magma chamber is calculated based on velocity perturbation instead of absolute velocity. Based on a dense seismic network, this study conducts a higher resolution model, and the full-wave method should provide a much better constraints to the absolute velocity. The result in absolute velocity may give a more precise estimate of the melt fraction
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the melt fraction estimation based on absolute velocity. Figure has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  In Figure S1, the temporal variation of the seismic activity seems to overlap. Multiple seismic events occur within a similar timeframe. An M-T diagram would be helpful for understanding the seismic behavior.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the M-T diagram in the revised manuscript. The M-T diagram shows that microseismic activities have gradually increased since 2021. This heightened seismic activity is likely indicative of continuous magma movement within the middle-lower crustal reservoirs.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-127', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Mar 2025
Lü et al. presents a high-resolution 3D shear-wave velocity model beneath the Wudalianchi (WDLC) volcano in northeast China using full-wave ambient noise tomography. They analyzed data from 30 broadband seismic stations deployed around the WDLC volcano to image the crustal structure with improved resolution compared to previous studies. Their key finding is a distinct low-velocity body at depths of ~10-23 km, interpreted as a middle-lower crustal magma reservoir. The data, methods, and results appear robust, and the manuscript is well-written. I have some minor comments.
Similar results (low-velocity zones beneath the Songliao Basin and beneath the WDLC volcano) have already been obtained by Lü et al. (2024b). While the authors mentioned in the Introduction section that the resolution is lower than in the present study, there does not seem to be a significant difference overall. Additional explanation should be provided to establish the novelty of this research more clearly.

Given that WDLC had its last eruption in the 18th century and is considered an active volcano, it would be beneficial to discuss more explicitly the implications for volcanic hazard assessment.

As shown in Figures 8 and S5, while the low-velocity zone beneath the Songliao Basin has also been estimated in previous studies, the low-velocity zone directly beneath the WDLC volcano appears unclear in previous study results. Section 4.1 primarily focuses on discussing differences in methodology, but could the authors also mention the contribution of their use of a larger number of seismometers?

Could there be further discussion about the time scale and supply volume of magma transport processes between each reservoir in the multi-level magma system (Figure 9)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', ziqiang lyu, 28 Mar 2025
  
  #Reviewer2
  Lü et al. presents a high-resolution 3D shear-wave velocity model beneath the Wudalianchi (WDLC) volcano in northeast China using full-wave ambient noise tomography. They analyzed data from 30 broadband seismic stations deployed around the WDLC volcano to image the crustal structure with improved resolution compared to previous studies. Their key finding is a distinct low-velocity body at depths of ~10-23 km, interpreted as a middle-lower crustal magma reservoir. The data, methods, and results appear robust, and the manuscript is well-written. I have some minor comments.
  1. Similar results (low-velocity zones beneath the Songliao Basin and beneath the WDLC volcano) have already been obtained by Lü et al. (2024b). While the authors mentioned in the Introduction section that the resolution is lower than in the present study, there does not seem to be a significant difference overall. Additional explanation should be provided to establish the novelty of this research more clearly.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. The improved resolution model reveals detailed features of the low-velocity zones, providing insights into the geometry of the crustal magma reservoir, a more accurate estimation of the melt fraction, and a clearer understanding of its spatial correlation with seismic activity. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  2. Given that WDLC had its last eruption in the 18th century and is considered an active volcano, it would be beneficial to discuss more explicitly the implications for volcanic hazard assessment.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. We assess potential volcanic hazards by integrating the temporal activity patterns of microseismic events with the spatial correlation of low-velocity anomalies. The observed seismic activity, particularly above the middle-lower crustal magma reservoir, may serve as an important precursor to future volcanic unrest. Since 2021, the frequency of microseismic events has shown a notable increase, indicating a progressive intensification of magmatic activity beneath the volcano. This increased seismicity likely points to ongoing magma migration and the pressurization of the middle-lower crustal reservoirs. Therefore, sustained monitoring is essential for detecting precursory signals of potential eruptions, understanding the dynamics of magmatic activity, and mitigating volcanic hazards. We have expanded the discussion in the revised manuscript.
  3. As shown in Figures 8 and S5, while the low-velocity zone beneath the Songliao Basin has also been estimated in previous studies, the low-velocity zone directly beneath the WDLC volcano appears unclear in previous study results. Section 4.1 primarily focuses on discussing differences in methodology, but could the authors also mention the contribution of their use of a larger number of seismometers?
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. The dense array provides better coverage and higher sensitivity to small-scale velocity anomalies, enabling us to clearly delineate the low-velocity zone directly beneath the WDLC volcano. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  4. Could there be further discussion about the time scale and supply volume of magma transport processes between each reservoir in the multi-level magma system (Figure 9)?
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. Individual magma reservoir in the upper crust reaches local thermal equilibrium within 10³ years. In contrast, large igneous systems could persist for 10⁵ to 10⁷ years (Cashman et al., 2017). Given that the last eruption of the WDLC volcanoes was ~300 years ago, the upper crustal magma reservoir may be continuously supplied by the observed middle-lower crustal magma reservoir. K–Ar dating results reveal that the Wudalianchi volcano has erupted about 30 times in the past 1 Ma (Wang & Chen, 2005), which preliminarily implies that magma transport to a shallow reservoir may require ~30 ka. In the future, more geochemical and modeling approaches are required to further evaluate magma transport processes in the multi-level magma system. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-127', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Mar 2025

Lû et al. target the shallow-mid crustal magmatic systems beneath the Wudalianchi Volcano in NE China, interesting intraplate volcanism with significant debate on the source origin. To do this, they adopt full-wave ambient noise tomography to seismic data from ~30 stations in the region and derive 3D shear-wave velocity structures from the surface down to 25 km depth. The main finding is a generally low-velocity body beneath the volcano at 10-23 km depth and was interpreted as a mid-crustal magmatic reservoir driving the volcano's activity. The manuscript is well-written, and high-quality figures are used. However, I have a few significant comments regarding the methods and discussion for the authors to consider when preparing their revisions.
L34: what is the context for the statement of “as one of the youngest volcanoes”? Is this in NE China, across China or something else?
Section 2 and Figure 3: For the cross-correlation functions, how are the waveforms fitted in the inversion? Are there any specific time windows targeted, or are all correlation functions? At the low-frequency end, 3-7 s and 5-10s, there appear to be multiple phases in the cross-correlation functions (Figures 3a-3b). How are the complex phases handled in the fitting process? In addition, please include waveform fitting plots to show the general quality of their model.
Section 3: the authors conducted checkerboard tests and one specific synthetic test to assess the resolution and recovery of their data and methods. These are very useful results, but they tell little information about the vertical smearing effects of their inversion. I suggest adding one or two synthetic tests, similar to the test shown in Figure S3, but putting the low-velocity anomalies at both shallower and deeper depths. The new tests would offer more insights into the robustness of their depth constraints on the mid-crustal reservoir, which is very important information for their model interpretations.
Section 4.1: the comparison plot summarized in Figure 8 is nice. However, it lacks a context of the existing studies. Could the authors add a paragraph to summarize the differences in methods, data used and other significant differences? In addition, the authors should include their own 2024 study for comparison as well. It appears that their 2024 paper uses the same methods but even more stations compared to this study in the region. A detailed justification is required to see significant improvement for a separate study in this paper.
Section 4.3: in the schematic model, the authors included the shallow-crust reservoir imaged by a previous study of Li et al. (2016). The authors should consider including a paragraph or two to explain why such a shallow reservoir is missing in their own model. Is this due to the data used or some of the wave complexities containing such information in this study, but they are not considered in the inversion?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', ziqiang lyu, 28 Mar 2025
  
  #Reviewer3
  Lû et al. target the shallow-mid crustal magmatic systems beneath the Wudalianchi Volcano in NE China, interesting intraplate volcanism with significant debate on the source origin. To do this, they adopt full-wave ambient noise tomography to seismic data from ~30 stations in the region and derive 3D shear-wave velocity structures from the surface down to 25 km depth. The main finding is a generally low-velocity body beneath the volcano at 10-23 km depth and was interpreted as a mid-crustal magmatic reservoir driving the volcano's activity. The manuscript is well-written, and high-quality figures are used. However, I have a few significant comments regarding the methods and discussion for the authors to consider when preparing their revisions.
  L34: what is the context for the statement of “as one of the youngest volcanoes”? Is this in NE China, across China or something else?
  R. Corrected.
  Section 2 and Figure 3: For the cross-correlation functions, how are the waveforms fitted in the inversion? Are there any specific time windows targeted, or are all correlation functions? At the low-frequency end, 3-7 s and 5-10s, there appear to be multiple phases in the cross-correlation functions (Figures 3a-3b). How are the complex phases handled in the fitting process? In addition, please include waveform fitting plots to show the general quality of their model.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. During the inversion, the cross-correlation coefficient between the synthetics and observed EGFs is required to be at least 0.6, and the observed EGFs are selected with a signal-to-noise ratio threshold of 4. The targeted time windows of Rayleigh waves are calculated with their typical minimum and maximum shear velocity of 2.5 km/s and 5 km/s. We minimize the discrepancies between the synthetics and EGFs with amplitude normalization applied to account for amplitude fluctuations. We have added waveform fitting in the Supporting Information. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  Section 3: the authors conducted checkerboard tests and one specific synthetic test to assess the resolution and recovery of their data and methods. These are very useful results, but they tell little information about the vertical smearing effects of their inversion. I suggest adding one or two synthetic tests, similar to the test shown in Figure S3, but putting the low-velocity anomalies at both shallower and deeper depths. The new tests would offer more insights into the robustness of their depth constraints on the mid-crustal reservoir, which is very important information for their model interpretations.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. We have conducted a new synthetic test to assess the resolution. Figure has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  Section 4.1: the comparison plot summarized in Figure 8 is nice. However, it lacks a context of the existing studies. Could the authors add a paragraph to summarize the differences in methods, data used and other significant differences? In addition, the authors should include their own 2024 study for comparison as well. It appears that their 2024 paper uses the same methods but even more stations compared to this study in the region. A detailed justification is required to see significant improvement for a separate study in this paper.
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. In comparison with recent shear-wave velocity models from traditional ambient noise tomography (Figs. 8 and S8), such as Shen et al. (2016), Fan et al. (2021), Chen et al. (2021), and Song et al. (2025). The traditional ambient noise tomography is based on the ray-based inversion method and assumes that the Rayleigh wave phase velocity is mainly sensitive to shear wave velocity. Due to wavefront healing (Nolet & Dahlen, 2000), the recovered shear-wave anomalies could be decreased by a factor of two or more (Maguire et al., 2022). Additionally, our deployment of a denser seismic network yields a higher crustal resolution compared to previous regional models (Shen et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2021). Moreover, compared to the model of Lü et al. (2024b), we retrieve higher-frequency signals that enhance the sensitivity to shallow structure. Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  Section 4.3: in the schematic model, the authors included the shallow-crust reservoir imaged by a previous study of Li et al. (2016). The authors should consider including a paragraph or two to explain why such a shallow reservoir is missing in their own model. Is this due to the data used or some of the wave complexities containing such information in this study, but they are not considered in the inversion?
  R. Thanks for your suggestion. The signal-to-noise ratio of the observed EGFs is relatively lower at short periods due to the wave complexity. Consequently, the shallow reservoir is not well defined due to the sparse ray-path coverage at short periods. Furthermore, with a lateral resolution of ~27 km, our model cannot confidently image small-scale crustal reservoirs with a scale of a few kilometers as reported by Li et al. (2016). Text has been updated in the revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by ziqiang lyu on behalf of the Authors (09 Apr 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Apr 2025) by Ayse Kaslilar

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (16 Apr 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (30 Apr 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (09 May 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I want to thank the authors for considering my comments. The revised manuscript has shown significant improvement compared to the original submission. However, I still have a few comments on the method/data and discussions, some of which were brought up in the initial reviews but are not fully addressed in the revision. A clearer explanation of these comments would be critical to ensure the high quality of the results; therefore, another round of revision is required before it can be considered for publication.

1. Data and Method section: I still have concerns about the tomography results, considering the complex waveforms in the short-period bands. This was related to the second comment in my initial review. The authors have addressed part of it, but ignored the part on the complexity of waveforms. At the low-frequency end, 3-7 s and 5-10s, there appear to be multiple phases in the cross-correlation functions (Figures 3a-3b). How are the complex phases handled in the fitting process? While the authors added one supplement figure (Fig. S3) showing the waveform fitting for one particular station pair, I suggest including the results for a few more station pairs, particularly those crossing the volcanic centres, to show the model's general high quality.

2. Related to the first point above, I suggest that the authors differentiate the cross-correlation function waveforms for station pairs crossing the volcano from those not in Figure 3. This could illustrate the waveform differences related to volcanic structures. In the waveform fitting process, the authors mentioned that they selected high-quality data using an SNR criterion of 4. Please include the definition of the SNR here.

3. On the statement of “Rayleigh waves are most sensitive to P-wave velocity at shallow depths”: Do you mean short-period Rayleigh wave here or in general? Is there any reference to back up this statement?

4. Melt fraction estimation in section 4.2: The authors added the melt fraction using absolute velocity based on comments from reviewer #1. I found the results very interesting, however, no details are given, with everything summarized in a supplementary figure (Fig. S9). I suggest moving this supplementary figure to the main text and adding more information about the computation processes in the discussion section. The melt fraction is a significant result from this study, and the related calculation behind it needs to be documented clearly in the main text.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (12 May 2025) by Ayse Kaslilar

AR by ziqiang lyu on behalf of the Authors (20 May 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 May 2025) by Ayse Kaslilar

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (30 May 2025)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (09 Jun 2025) by Ayse Kaslilar

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (09 Jun 2025) by CharLotte Krawczyk (Executive editor)

AR by ziqiang lyu on behalf of the Authors (15 Jun 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

08 Sep 2025

The crustal magma reservoir geometry and seismic activity beneath the Wudalianchi volcano in northeast China: implications for the multilevel magmatic system

Ziqiang Lü, Qinghan Kong, Jianshe Lei, and Yinshuang Ai

Solid Earth, 16, 807–818, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-807-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-807-2025, 2025

Short summary

Ziqiang Lü, Qinghan Kong, Jianshe Lei, and Yinshuang Ai

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-127-supplement

Ziqiang Lü, Qinghan Kong, Jianshe Lei, and Yinshuang Ai

Viewed

Total article views: 501 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
365	115	21	501	36	20	35

HTML: 365
PDF: 115
XML: 21
Total: 501
Supplement: 36
BibTeX: 20
EndNote: 35

Views and downloads (calculated since 30 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	29	5	2	36
Feb 2025	50	17	2	69
Mar 2025	54	16	5	75
Apr 2025	19	12	1	32
May 2025	22	11	3	36
Jun 2025	25	10	6	41
Jul 2025	27	12	1	40
Aug 2025	94	28	1	123
Sep 2025	45	4	0	49

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 30 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	29	5	2	36
Feb 2025	50	17	2	69
Mar 2025	54	16	5	75
Apr 2025	19	12	1	32
May 2025	22	11	3	36
Jun 2025	25	10	6	41
Jul 2025	27	12	1	40
Aug 2025	94	28	1	123
Sep 2025	45	4	0	49

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 503 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 503 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 08 Sep 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1834 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

The spatial correlation between crustal magma reservoir and seismicity is crucial for investigating the dynamics of the Wudalianchi volcanic systems. A high-resolution 3-D shear-wave velocity crustal model reveals a distinct low-velocity body located at depths of ~10–23 km below the Wudalianchi volcano. Together with the earthquake distribution, this provides new insights into the magmatic activity of the active Wudalianchi volcano.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0