the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Unveiling Tectonic Deformation in El Salvador Through GNSS and InSAR Kinematic Modelling
Abstract. The El Salvador Fault Zone (ESFZ) accommodates most of the differential motion between the Central America Volcanic Forearc and the Chortís block in Central America. By combining recent Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) observations, we develop the first kinematic block model for El Salvador that jointly inverts both data types. The model refines previous regional studies by resolving slip partitioning within the ESFZ and its continuations in Guatemala and the Gulf of Fonseca. Our preferred model predicts total slip rates of about 14 mm yr⁻¹ across the central ESFZ, distributed between a northern branch (5–8 mm yr⁻¹ dextral, 3–7 mm yr⁻¹ normal) and a southern branch (2–6 mm yr⁻¹ dextral). Dextral motion decreases toward the Jalpatagua Fault in Guatemala and toward the San Miguel Fault in eastern El Salvador, increasing again along the Marrabios Fault in Nicaragua. Subduction coupling beneath El Salvador appears weak (Φ≈0.2) and confined to shallow depths, strengthening westward into Guatemala. These results highlight a strongly coupled volcanic arc and a weakly coupled subduction interface. Future seafloor geodetic measurements and new radar satellite missions could improve constraints on slab coupling and crustal deformation processes in this seismically active region.
- Preprint
(7069 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(12626 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5755', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jan 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marta Béjar-Pizarro, 13 Feb 2026
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for your thorough review and for your evaluation of our manuscript. We have followed your suggestions line by line and incorporated the corresponding modifications into the manuscript. We have slightly restructured Section 1 (Introduction) to further emphasise recent literature on the joint inversion of InSAR and GNSS data and added relevant papers on the topic (including Wu et al., 2024). We have also revised several figures in accordance with your comments. We believe that these changes have improved the quality and readability of the manuscript. We remain at your disposal in case any further changes or clarifications are required. Please, find attached the detailed responses to each of your comments.
Best regards,
Marta Béjar Pizarro
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marta Béjar-Pizarro, 13 Feb 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5755', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jan 2026
This study uses GNSS and InSAR data to examine the deformation at the triple junction where the Cocos, North American, and Caribbean plates meet. The kinematic block model results for El Salvador are particularly interesting for this complex region as they also identify the distribution of the different zones of coupling. As the results are consistent with most of the data, presenting a new kinematic block model for El Salvador is useful for understanding the region. The work appears to be well executed and I have no specific comments.
Just two minor comments:
- Could you please highlight the Forearc Sliver (FORE) in Figure 1, perhaps by coloring it differently, even if its borders are not be well defined?
- You terminated your IPAL block until 91.8°W. However, based on seismicity, Legrand et al. (2025) have suggested that the Japaltagua fault may extend westwards to the Tacana volcano (at ~92.1°W), with the triple junction located close to this volcano (the first of the CAVA). Could you discuss this hypothesis? You decided to place the triple junction further to the east. Why?
Legrand D., Perton M., Spica Z., Jon J., Alatorre M., Peiffer L., Campion R., Valdés C., Caballero-Jiménez G., Vargas-Zamudio K., Espíndola J.M., De la Cruz-Reyna S., 2025: The Magma plumbing system and seismo-tectonics of the Guatemala-Mexico triple junction as revealed by the seismicity of the Tacaná volcano before and after the 2017 Mw8.2 Chiapas earthquake. Geophysical Journal International, 242, 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaf167
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5755-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marta Béjar-Pizarro, 13 Feb 2026
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your time and for reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully addressed the points you raised and revised the manuscript accordingly. In particular, we have modified Figure 1 to better illustrate the approximate extent of the volcanic forearc, and we have added a brief discussion explaining why our model does not extend to the NOAM–COCO–CARI triple junction. We also mention its approximate location based on Legrand et al. (2025). We believe that these changes improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. Please, find attached the detailed responses to each of your comments.
Best regards,
Marta Béjar Pizarro
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5755', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jan 2026
Overview and general recommendation
This paper provides an InSAR Kinematic Modelling based on a reliable and widely used approach(TDEFNODE). As reported by the authors, this model has been applied in the study zone but is limited to GPS/GNSS data. The relevant point is the joint inversion of GNSS and InSAR velocities. The authors present all the expected elements for a manuscript like this. After a detailed review of the manuscript, I consider the paper suitable for publication, but it will require minor corrections, as outlined in the following comments.
General comments:
The abstract, introduction, data and methodology, strain rate field, kinematic results, discussion, and conclusions are generally well written; however, minor comments are outlined in the next section as suggestions for the authors' consideration. In my view, probably, the inversion strategy is one of the most interesting contributions of this paper. However, I note a lack of revision of similar joint inversion strategies by other authors (e.g.). Wu et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106143.
Minor comments:
Please see the attached PDF.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marta Béjar-Pizarro, 13 Feb 2026
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for your thorough review and for your evaluation of our manuscript. We have followed your suggestions line by line and incorporated the corresponding modifications into the manuscript. We have slightly restructured Section 1 (Introduction) to further emphasise recent literature on the joint inversion of InSAR and GNSS data and added relevant papers on the topic (including Wu et al., 2024). We have also revised several figures in accordance with your comments. We believe that these changes have improved the quality and readability of the manuscript. We remain at your disposal in case any further changes or clarifications are required. Please, find attached the detailed responses to each of your comments.
Best regards,
Marta Béjar Pizarro
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marta Béjar-Pizarro, 13 Feb 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5755', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jan 2026
This study uses GNSS and InSAR data to examine the deformation at the triple junction where the Cocos, North American, and Caribbean plates meet. The kinematic block model results for El Salvador are particularly interesting for this complex region as they also identify the distribution of the different zones of coupling. As the results are consistent with most of the data, presenting a new kinematic block model for El Salvador is useful for understanding the region. The work appears to be well executed and I have no specific comments.
Just two minor comments:
- Could you please highlight the Forearc Sliver (FORE) in Figure 1, perhaps by coloring it differently, even if its borders are not be well defined?
- You terminated your IPAL block until 91.8°W. However, based on seismicity, Legrand et al. (2025) have suggested that the Japaltagua fault may extend westwards to the Tacana volcano (at ~92.1°W), with the triple junction located close to this volcano (the first of the CAVA). Could you discuss this hypothesis? You decided to place the triple junction further to the east. Why?
Legrand D., Perton M., Spica Z., Jon J., Alatorre M., Peiffer L., Campion R., Valdés C., Caballero-Jiménez G., Vargas-Zamudio K., Espíndola J.M., De la Cruz-Reyna S., 2025: The Magma plumbing system and seismo-tectonics of the Guatemala-Mexico triple junction as revealed by the seismicity of the Tacaná volcano before and after the 2017 Mw8.2 Chiapas earthquake. Geophysical Journal International, 242, 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaf167
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5755-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marta Béjar-Pizarro, 13 Feb 2026
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your time and for reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully addressed the points you raised and revised the manuscript accordingly. In particular, we have modified Figure 1 to better illustrate the approximate extent of the volcanic forearc, and we have added a brief discussion explaining why our model does not extend to the NOAM–COCO–CARI triple junction. We also mention its approximate location based on Legrand et al. (2025). We believe that these changes improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. Please, find attached the detailed responses to each of your comments.
Best regards,
Marta Béjar Pizarro
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 260 | 232 | 31 | 523 | 68 | 22 | 20 |
- HTML: 260
- PDF: 232
- XML: 31
- Total: 523
- Supplement: 68
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Overview and general recommendation
This paper provides an InSAR Kinematic Modelling based on a reliable and widely used approach(TDEFNODE). As reported by the authors, this model has been applied in the study zone but is limited to GPS/GNSS data. The relevant point is the joint inversion of GNSS and InSAR velocities. The authors present all the expected elements for a manuscript like this. After a detailed review of the manuscript, I consider the paper suitable for publication, but it will require minor corrections, as outlined in the following comments.
General comments:
The abstract, introduction, data and methodology, strain rate field, kinematic results, discussion, and conclusions are generally well written; however, minor comments are outlined in the next section as suggestions for the authors' consideration. In my view, probably, the inversion strategy is one of the most interesting contributions of this paper. However, I note a lack of revision of similar joint inversion strategies by other authors (e.g.). Wu et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106143.
Minor comments:
Please see the attached PDF.