Status: final response (author comments only)
The manuscript is representing and interesting study. There are some point to be modified in the text before publication:
line 171: - " we selected only those records with clear and strong (in comparison to maximum amplitude on the trace)direct P phases. " / There is much more effective if the authors specified the uncertainty level in P phase picking.
lines-191-192;: "As can be seen, the wavefield for the same event appears withdifferent frequency content at different stations.". / It is better that the event specification (time, magnitude, place) will be included.
I am comvinced that the article is representing an interesting study.
However I suggest that the author add the uncertainty level of P-phase picking, as well as the used seismic events will be presented in the manuscript, memtioning their time, magnitude and locations (if possible).
We are very thankful to Mehdi Zare for his affirmative review. Regarding the comments, we would like to clarify few points:
The microseismic events used in this study are located through a migration-based event location approach. The localization procedure including the uncertainty level of P-phase picking (3 ms) has been discussed in a previous publication (Hassani et al. 2018) which is referenced in line 164.
The hypocenter location of the events are illustrated in figures 1, 2 and specifically in figure 6. However since the global coordinate of the located hypocenters is not directly relevant to the theme of this study, we avoided to go through those details. This applies also to the specific time of the events. The magnitude range of all events is mentioned in line 159 (−1.30<Mw<0.90).
Hossein Hassani on behalf of co-authors
In my opinion, the presented article showcases a novel approch in depth imgaing using passive data. I was fascinated by the fact that seismic network primarily desinged only for detecting earthquakes when combined with advanced depth imaging techniques can delineate geological structures at crustal scale. The approach provides a new insight on how the passive data from such networks can be used to image large scale feature and can complement other methods/results.
Although the article consisted of a strong technical approach towards the problem, I found it difficult to convince based on the results being presented. Due to lack of comparison with other standard imaging approach and existing results present for the area, I put my opinion as for "major revision". More specific details can be found on the attached PDF file.
I hope you will process my comments in a constructive and it will help you in rectifying your article.
We are grateful for the positive opinion and careful review of referee #2 on our article. Of course we will consider your constructive and helpful comments in a revision and try to enhance the manuscript to improve the statement and declarations.
Referring to your comment about the lack of comparison with the other standard imaging approach, we would like to mention the limited coverage of the available dataset on the study area. On the other hand, in order to avoid repetitions and to demonstrate the reliability of the imaging results, we performed a one-to-one comparison to show the differences and similarities between our results and the results of the conventional active seismic imaging survey. However, we will try to enhance the comparison part (as much as possible) to provide a better understanding of the results of this study.
Please provide a reason why you see this comment as being abusive.You might include your name and email but you can also stay anonymous.
Please provide a reason why you see this comment as being abusive.
Please confirm reCaptcha.