Geological Exploration, Landslide Characterization and Susceptibility Mapping at the Boundary between Two Crystalline Bodies in Jajarkot, Nepal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have revised the manuscript geotechnics-2006783-peer-review-v1, entitled: Geological Exploration, Survey of Landslide Occurrence Pattern and Susceptibility Mapping Using Two Bivariate Models at the boundary between two crystalline bodies in Jajarkot, Nepal. The topic of the manuscript is certainly suitable for the journal and of potential international interest. While the approach is not completely novel, the results and their interpretation could improve the knowledge on the on the factors influencing the spatial occurrence of the landslides. A lot of data is presented and the manuscript is fine written and many informative on aims and results obtained. The results are largely discussed. Therefore, the manuscript can deserve publication but before that accept the paper some additional information should be provided.
-My first issue is related to the Introduction section, because it is not exhaustive, therefore some information should be add regards to methodologies applied. Also, the Authors should better highlight the novelty of the applied methodology and their points of force.
-I suggest to add major information, related to geo-structural and geotectonic setting of the study area.
-I suggest to add a figure with a flowchart of the methodology applied. This could help the reader to better understand all steps of the work.
The authors should explain why were selected only three predisposing factors (slope, land use and TWI) to evaluate the landslide susceptibility.
- I suggest to detect the contribute of each landslide predisposing factor for each landslide susceptibility model (e.g. see: Conforti, M., Ietto, F. 2021. Modeling shallow landslide susceptibility and assessment of the relative importance of predisposing factors, through a GIS-based statistical analysis. Geosciences, 11, 333)
-The discussion failed to present a clear story but rather includes several issues which were discussed in a superficial way. Therefore, this aspect should be better focused in the discussion section.
-I suggest to compare the results obtained from landslide susceptibility analysis with recent papers that used the FR and WOE methods to evaluate the landslide susceptibility.
-The authors must emphasize the novelty of the their research and that their work can be successfully used in other regions and settings, because this justify the publication in an international journal.
-I suggest to divide the section Discussion from Conclusion, this last  should brief and include the major findings/concluding remarks of your research.

Best regards

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for reviewing our manuscript. Your comments really helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Your comments and our works based on your comments are given below along with the updates in the manuscript. The major changes are marked with red colored text in the updated manuscript.

Reviewer I

I have revised the manuscript geotechnics-2006783-peer-review-v1, entitled: Geological Exploration, Survey of Landslide Occurrence Pattern and Susceptibility Mapping Using Two Bivariate Models at the boundary between two crystalline bodies in Jajarkot, Nepal. The topic of the manuscript is certainly suitable for the journal and of potential international interest. While the approach is not completely novel, the results and their interpretation could improve the knowledge on the on the factors influencing the spatial occurrence of the landslides. A lot of data is presented and the manuscript is fine written and many informative on aims and results obtained. The results are largely discussed. Therefore, the manuscript can deserve publication but before that accept the paper some additional information should be provided.
-My first issue is related to the Introduction section, because it is not exhaustive, therefore some information should be add regards to methodologies applied. Also, the Authors should better highlight the novelty of the applied methodology and their points of force.

Response: Introduction section is updated. The brief information on what is performed, and methods adopted is given in line 84 to 93 of the updated manuscript. More details are given in Methodology section.

-I suggest to add major information, related to geo-structural and geotectonic setting of the study area.

Response: Information on geo-structural and geo-tectonic setting of the study area has been included in introduction section from line 75-84 of the updated manuscript.

-I suggest to add a figure with a flowchart of the methodology applied. This could help the reader to better understand all steps of the work.

Response: The manuscript is is already too long as it includes multiple aspects of geo-hazard research. Adding flow chart just makes it more long without adding much information as all the information is given in text already.

The authors should explain why were selected only three predisposing factors (slope, land use and TWI) to evaluate the landslide susceptibility.
- I suggest to detect the contribute of each landslide predisposing factor for each landslide susceptibility model (e.g. see: Conforti, M., Ietto, F. 2021. Modeling shallow landslide susceptibility and assessment of the relative importance of predisposing factors, through a GIS-based statistical analysis. Geosciences, 11, 333)

Response: We have used altogether thirteen predisposing/causative factors i.e., slope, aspect, slope shape, TWI, SPI, distances to thrust, major anticline, syncline, stream and road, lithology, landuse and rainfall, based on detailed landslide survey and existing literatures. These are the major landslide causative factors, adding other less important factors just makes the manuscript lengthy without improving the overall results. The work of Conforti and Letto is quite commendable as they have justified selection of each factor with multicollinearity test. We have cited the work of Conforti and Letto in discussion section (line number 541, reference 71 of the updated manuscript)

-The discussion failed to present a clear story but rather includes several issues which were discussed in a superficial way. Therefore, this aspect should be better focused in the discussion section.

Response: This comment is controversial with the second last comment of second reviewer. Therefore, authors are hesitant to work furthermore on discussion although it is updated slightly.

-I suggest to compare the results obtained from landslide susceptibility analysis with recent papers that used the FR and WOE methods to evaluate the landslide susceptibility.

Response: The comparison of results with statistical approach including FR and WOE methods are given in discussion section in line 549-561 of the updated manuscript.

-The authors must emphasize the novelty of their research and that their work can be successfully used in other regions and settings, because this justify the publication in an international journal.

Response: It has been included in concluding remarks highlighting the importance of the study.

-I suggest to divide the section Discussion from Conclusion, this last should brief and include the major findings/concluding remarks of your research.

Response: Conclusions sections has been added (in bullets).

Thank you very much once again for your valuable suggestions. Your suggestions mean a lot for us to grow and improve further.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The objective of this paper is determining the properties of two crystalline bodies, located in Jajarkot region (Nepal), investigating landslide occurrence pattern and modeling landslide susceptibility, implementing two bivariate statistical approaches.

The is an interesting and well-structured paper, which includes all necessary sections (Introduction, Study area, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions). Moreover, “Methods” and “Results” sections are divided into sub-sections, providing additional details. Regarding the mathematical part, presented in the “Methods” and “Results” sections, all equations are valid and described properly. Furthermore, Figures and Tables are consistent with the analysis, described in the text. However, some changes/corrections should be performed, which will overall improve the paper:

Lines 2-5: The paper title should be more concise and briefer. Please, modify it.

Lines 68-77: Although the paper objectives are mentioned in this part, additional information are provided, making it difficult to comprehend these objectives. I suggest splitting this part into two paragraphs or numbering the objectives, in order to be clear. Please, apply.

Line 92: Before this paragraph, I suggest adding a brief, new paragraph describing the geotectonic setting and geodynamic evolution of the study area. This add is quite significant, as it will provide important information about the processes, resulted in the study area current form. This paragraph should be accompanied with the corresponding references, related to earth surface processes and crust deformation. Typical references, which could be considered, are the following: 1. Hashimoto, M., & Jackson, D. D. (1993). Plate tectonics and crustal deformation around the Japanese Islands. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98(B9), 16149. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB00444, 2. Lazos, I., Papanikolaou, I., Sboras, S., Foumelis, M., & Pikridas, C. (2022). Geodetic Upper Crust Deformation Based on Primary GNSS and INSAR Data in the Strymon Basin, Northern Greece - Correlation with Active Faults. Applied Sciences, 12(18), 9391. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189391, 3. Müller, M. D., Geiger, A., Kahle, H. G., Veis, G., Billiris, H., Paradissis, D., & Felekis, S. (2013). Velocity and deformation fields in the North Aegean domain, Greece, and implications for fault kinematics, derived from GPS data 1993-2009. Tectonophysics, 597–598, 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.08.003, 4. Wu, Y., Li, L., Chen, C., Liang, H., Guo, N., & Li, Y. (2021). GNSS deformation characteristics of North China in the past two decades. Geodesy and Geodynamics, 12(6), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2021.08.004

Line 117: Please, provide a detailed description for the Digital Elevation Model (e.g. spatial resolution).

Line 232: Please, include the corresponding references in the “Structures” sub-section.

Line 250: Please, increase the resolution of Figure 2; some parts are blur.

Line 276: Figures 4e and 4f are quite dark. Please, modify them.

Lines 366-368: These lines should be rephrased. Moreover, the phrase “faults may be associated with abnormal groundwater conditions” is quite vague and should be further explained. Please, apply.

Line 478: The “Discussion and Conclusions” section should be renamed to “Discussion”, as the results are analyzed in detail. Therefore, a new section (“Conclusions”) should be added after the “Discussion” section. This should be brief and include the major findings/concluding remarks of your research (maybe you could number them). Please, apply.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for reviewing our manuscript. Your comments really helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Your comments and our works based on your comments are given below along with the updates in the manuscript. The major changes are marked with red colored text in the updated manuscript.

Reviewer II

The objective of this paper is determining the properties of two crystalline bodies, located in Jajarkot region (Nepal), investigating landslide occurrence pattern and modeling landslide susceptibility, implementing two bivariate statistical approaches.

The is an interesting and well-structured paper, which includes all necessary sections (Introduction, Study area, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions). Moreover, “Methods” and “Results” sections are divided into sub-sections, providing additional details. Regarding the mathematical part, presented in the “Methods” and “Results” sections, all equations are valid and described properly. Furthermore, Figures and Tables are consistent with the analysis, described in the text. However, some changes/corrections should be performed, which will overall improve the paper:

Lines 2-5: The paper title should be more concise and briefer. Please, modify it.

Response: The title is changed to Geological Exploration, Landslide Characterization and Susceptibility Mapping at the Boundary Between two Crystalline Bodies in Jajarkot, Nepal.

Lines 68-77: Although the paper objectives are mentioned in this part, additional information are provided, making it difficult to comprehend these objectives. I suggest splitting this part into two paragraphs or numbering the objectives, in order to be clear. Please, apply.

Response: It has been spitted and written pointwise in bullet in the introduction from line 84 to line 96 of the updated manuscript.

Line 92: Before this paragraph, I suggest adding a brief, new paragraph describing the geotectonic setting and geodynamic evolution of the study area. This add is quite significant, as it will provide important information about the processes, resulted in the study area current form. This paragraph should be accompanied with the corresponding references, related to earth surface processes and crust deformation. Typical references, which could be considered, are the following: 1. Hashimoto, M., & Jackson, D. D. (1993). Plate tectonics and crustal deformation around the Japanese Islands. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98(B9), 16149. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB00444, 2. Lazos, I., Papanikolaou, I., Sboras, S., Foumelis, M., & Pikridas, C. (2022). Geodetic Upper Crust Deformation Based on Primary GNSS and INSAR Data in the Strymon Basin, Northern Greece - Correlation with Active Faults. Applied Sciences, 12(18), 9391. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189391, 3. Müller, M. D., Geiger, A., Kahle, H. G., Veis, G., Billiris, H., Paradissis, D., & Felekis, S. (2013). Velocity and deformation fields in the North Aegean domain, Greece, and implications for fault kinematics, derived from GPS data 1993-2009. Tectonophysics, 597–598, 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.08.003, 4. Wu, Y., Li, L., Chen, C., Liang, H., Guo, N., & Li, Y. (2021). GNSS deformation characteristics of North China in the past two decades. Geodesy and Geodynamics, 12(6), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geog.2021.08.004.

Response: Investigations incorporating geodetic data with crustal deformation and geodynamics is lacking in the Nepal Himalaya. Moreover, such investigations are not carried out in and around the study area. As the study area represents one of the most remote and underdeveloped of Nepal, only small-scale geological mapping in 1990’s and few researches incorporating field-based geological mapping are being carried out recently. Due to lack of information, we are unable to provide much on geodynamics; however, we have provided brief information on geodynamics of the Himalayan Orogeny in the beginning of the introduction of the updated manuscripts. Thanks for suggesting such important literatures on geodynamics, we have cited them in line 513 (references 63-66).

Line 117: Please, provide a detailed description for the Digital Elevation Model (e.g. spatial resolution).

Response: It has been provided in line 135-148.

Line 232: Please, include the corresponding references in the “Structures” sub-section.

Response: Two references regarding the equivalent thrust sheets has been provided in line.

Line 250: Please, increase the resolution of Figure 2; some parts are blur.

Response: It has been redrawn and the name of the litho-units has been changed to the name of the equivalent litho-units of other established stratigraphic sections to avoid controversy in new nomenclature.

Line 276: Figures 4e and 4f are quite dark. Please, modify them.

Response: The resolution of figures has decreased while uploading in the system. They can be taken care working with production team once this manuscript is accepted for publication but still figures have been modified and made brighter.

Lines 366-368: These lines should be rephrased. Moreover, the phrase “faults may be associated with abnormal groundwater conditions” is quite vague and should be further explained. Please, apply.

Response: It has been incorporated in line 393 to line 396 of the updated manuscript.

Line 478: The “Discussion and Conclusions” section should be renamed to “Discussion”, as the results are analyzed in detail. Therefore, a new section (“Conclusions”) should be added after the “Discussion” section. This should be brief and include the major findings/concluding remarks of your research (maybe you could number them). Please, apply.

Response: Discussion and conclusions has been renamed as Discussion and Conclusions section has been added.

Thank you very much once again for your valuable suggestions. Your suggestions mean a lot for us to grow and improve further.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx