“…Apart from the realization that MTDs are an important stratigraphic component of continental margins (they can reach ~70% of their total volume of sediments; Maslin et al, ; Moscardelli & Wood, ), this study has significant implications to, at least, four key aspects: (1) when accurately calculating the volumes of MTDs, a piece of information that is important to the modeling of sediment transport and distribution processes in deepwater margins; (2) when modeling tsunami height and distribution, as the initial volume of failed sediment (Text S1), together with water depth, initial sediment acceleration, sediment type, and slope gradient, are important parameters influencing the magnitude of landslide‐triggered tsunamis (Locat et al, ). Most published data, using only imaged volumes (Vm) for MTDs, have consistently returned modeled tsunami magnitudes that are lower than their witnessed heights, e.g., the 1998 Papua New Guinea (Synolakis et al, ), the 1929 Grand Banks (Fine et al, ), and the 1964 southern Alaska (Brothers et al, ) tsunamis. For example, the modeled height for the 1998 Papua New Guinea tsunami was 20%–50% lower than the values observed in the field (Synolakis et al, ), a result of systematic underestimations of the volume of MTDs associated with the tsunami; (3) deepwater cables can be disrupted by landslide‐generated turbidity currents (Carter et al, ; Pope et al, ).…”