the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Deciphering the Crustal Structure of the Lerma Valley (NW Argentina): A Multi-Method Seismic Investigation
Abstract. We investigated the crustal structure beneath the Lerma Valley in northwestern Argentina using data from a local seismic network deployed between 2017 and 2018. This geologically complex transition zone between the Eastern Cordillera and the Sierras Subandinas is characterized by moderate to high seismicity (INPRES, 2024), yet remains largely understudied despite its strategic location within the Andean orogen (Jordan et al., 1983; Allmendinger et al., 1997). Its passive orogenic setting and evidence of inherited structures (Ramos, 2008; Mon and Salfity, 1995; Kley and Monaldi, 2002) make it a natural laboratory for exploring intraplate deformation and foreland basin evolution (Pérez et al., 2016; Tassara et al., 2018). We combined local and teleseismic receiver functions with ambient noise tomography (ANT), jointly inverting Rayleigh wave phase velocities to obtain 1D shear-wave velocity profiles. The results reveal a stratified crust with four main discontinuities at ∼ 53–43, 35–30, 10–8, and 1.5–1.2 km, corresponding to the Moho, mid- and lower-crustal boundaries, and the base of the sedimentary basin. A southward-dipping Moho is evident from CCP migration and T-component phase shifts. Velocity profiles also show a north–south contrast: lower velocities (1–2.5 km/s) in the south indicate thicker, less consolidated sediments, while the north exhibits more competent crust (up to 3.5 km/s). The final model comprises five layers, including three sedimentary and two crystalline crustal units. We also introduced a layer-dependent κ correction, revealing a trend from 1.65 at the Moho to 2 in upper layers. These results provide new geophysical constraints on the crustal architecture and tectonic evolution of this underexplored Andean region.
- Preprint
(8322 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Dec 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2979', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Nov 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Emilio José Marcelo Criado-Sutti, 18 Nov 2025
reply
Dear Referee,
We would like to express our profound gratitude for your insightful comments. During the process of compilation, there were some issues that led to mislocation of some figures and references without spaces. It is possible to address these issues presently, in addition to those associated with the results and discussion sections. The proposed changes will be executed, and the text and figures will be refined.
We would like to express our gratitude once more.
There is no need to be concerned about the delayed response.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2979-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Emilio José Marcelo Criado-Sutti, 18 Nov 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 774 | 61 | 10 | 845 | 29 | 36 |
- HTML: 774
- PDF: 61
- XML: 10
- Total: 845
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 36
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
In the manuscript titled 'Deciphering the Crustal Structure of the Lerma Valley (NW Argentina): A Multi-Method Seismic Investigation' presented by Criado-Sutti et al., the velocity structure of the Lerma Valley (north-western Argentina) is studied using two different data sets: local and teleseismic receiver functions and ambient noise tomography. These data were inverted to obtain 1D shear wave velocity models beneath each seismic station, providing constraints on the velocity structure down to a depth of 80 km. In addition, group and phase velocity maps between 2-5 seconds of period were calculated, adding information on the crustal structure of the studied area. However, although the data and methods section is well described and discursive, the results and discussion section is not as clear, often lacking references to figures or introducing them later (or never referring to them, as in Figure 9), creating considerable difficulty for the reader. For example, Figure 9 is never mentioned in the text, and it was only at the end of the manuscript that I was able to understand comments and interpretations included in the text that were previously unclear.
Furthermore, the English is often incorrect. For this reason, I am attaching my revisions in PDF format. I am attaching them as I made them step by step and only noticed Figure 9 at the end, so I ask you to take this into account when reading my comments.
Therefore, although the work is valid in terms of the data and methods applied in a previously unconstrained area of study and is certainly of geodynamic/geological interest, I suggest the manuscript required major revisions. I ask the authors to be clear when presenting the results and to insert the figures correctly. All other comments can be found in the PDF. In the PDF, I have also suggested to modify some Figures (Fig. 2, Table 3, Figure 6).
Finally, I would suggest performing further tests on the cross-correlations shown in the graph in Figure 6. I suggest checking whether applying other bandpass filters with different ranges (ex 0.1-0.5 Hz) can improve the energy of the plotted waveforms.
I hope I have been helpful and apologise for the delay.