Seismic monitoring of small alpine rockfalls – validity, precision and limitations

Dietze, Michael; Mohadjer, Solmaz; Turowski, Jens M.; Ehlers, Todd A.; Hovius, Niels

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-653-2017

Articles | Volume 5, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-653-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

4-D reconstruction of earth surface processes: multi-temporal...

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-653-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 5, issue 4

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

16 Oct 2017

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 16 Oct 2017

Seismic monitoring of small alpine rockfalls – validity, precision and limitations

Michael Dietze, Solmaz Mohadjer, Jens M. Turowski, Todd A. Ehlers, and Niels Hovius

Download

Final revised paper (published on 16 Oct 2017)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Mar 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'impressive job detecting and locating very small events', Valerie Zimmer, 11 Apr 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to referee comments', Michael Dietze, 13 Apr 2017
RC2: 'Review of: “Validity, precision and limitations of seismic rockfall monitoring” by M. Dietze et al.', Clement Hibert, 27 Apr 2017
RC3: 'Review of “Validity, precision and limitations of seismic rockfall monitoring” by Michael Dietze et al.', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 May 2017
RC4: 'Review', Agnès Helmstetter, 31 May 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Michael Dietze on behalf of the Authors (13 Jul 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by Editor) (31 Aug 2017) by Carlos Castillo

This is an interesting paper on the use of seismic methods for the detection of small-magnitude rockfall validated using multi-temporal TLS surveys. This manuscript has already undergone a great improvement after implementing most of the recommendations expressed by the reviewers. However, there are several points that still need to be addressed mainly concerned with the structure and writing of the manuscript. Overall, this can be considered as a moderate revision. Please find the details in the attached file with my comments over the revised manuscript. The main aspects that need improvement are the following:
1. In some places the structure is confusing, especially regarding section 3, 4.3 and the conclusions.
a) Section 3 should be moved to the introduction as one of the reviewers already suggested and Fig 2 should be included on a aproppriate section.
b) Section 4.3 could be improved by explaining more carefully the different stages, parameters and threshold values of the manual and automated detection procedure. This is critical since many of the questions of the reviewers ask for clarification on these aspects and it is a central aspect of this contribution. I strongly recommend depicting a diagram in which this quite complex methodology is clearly explained. Since currently there are 8 figures, including one more is reasonable. The authors have incorporated the different suggestions of the reviewers in the text but a proper graphical view of the multiple stages is really necessary.
c) Regarding the conclusions, a clearer division in advantages, limits and future lines could be performed.
2. The writing must be improved in many places. There are missing colons, hyphens and articles throughout the manuscript and many expressions do not sound correct, even for a non-native english speaker like myself. It is clear that the original or revised version of the manuscript have not been carefully revised by a native english speaker. This correction should be carried out to achieve a suitable version for publication.

Comments to the Author: PDF

Hide

AR by Michael Dietze on behalf of the Authors (07 Sep 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (12 Sep 2017) by Carlos Castillo

ED: Publish as is (12 Sep 2017) by Douglas Jerolmack (Editor)

AR by Michael Dietze on behalf of the Authors (13 Sep 2017) Manuscript

Short summary

We use a seismometer network to detect and locate rockfalls, a key process shaping steep mountain landscapes. When tested against laser scan surveys, all seismically detected events could be located with an average deviation of 81 m. Seismic monitoring provides insight to the dynamics of individual rockfalls, which can be as small as 0.0053 m³. Thus, seismic methods provide unprecedented temporal, spatial and kinematic details about this important process.