A Normal Faults System in the Monte Nerone area and its significance in the recent seismo-tectonic setting of the Northern Umbria-Marche Apennines (Italy)

De Donatis, Mauro; Pappafico, Giulio Fabrizio; Susini, Sara; Alberti, Mauro; Muñoz Guerrero, Nelson; Ottaviani, Francesco

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87

Preprints

05 Jul 2021

| 05 Jul 2021

Status: this preprint was under review for the journal SE. A final paper is not foreseen.

A Normal Faults System in the Monte Nerone area and its significance in the recent seismo-tectonic setting of the Northern Umbria-Marche Apennines (Italy)

Mauro De Donatis, Giulio Fabrizio Pappafico, Sara Susini, Mauro Alberti, Nelson Muñoz Guerrero, and Francesco Ottaviani

Abstract. The faults system mapped in the northern Marche Apennines, the NW sector of Monte Nerone, Italy, shows many indications of recent activity. This area has been affected by some strong historical earthquakes, such as the Cagli earthquake of 1781, similar to seismic events close by affecting the southern Marche, Umbria, Lazio, and Abruzzi areas in recent years, we focused our investigation on this sector.

The original field mapping work integrated with seismic and subsurface data suggests very similar genesis and kinematics to those of the recent seismic events in the south of Marche region. In addition, this interpretation could also attest the extensional tectonic activity affecting the whole Adriatic side of the watershed backbone of this sector of the Apennines, with probable inversion of involved previous compressional features, such as thrust ramps.

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Received: 30 Jun 2021 – Discussion started: 05 Jul 2021

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2519 KB)

Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
Preprint (2519 KB)

Download & links

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Mauro De Donatis, Giulio Fabrizio Pappafico, Sara Susini, Mauro Alberti, Nelson Muñoz Guerrero, and Francesco Ottaviani

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on se-2021-87', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jul 2021

The paper shows some interesting data on active tectonics in northern Apennines but the supporting data set seems a bit poor. Moreover, the arguments are exposed in a generic way and do not support completely the conclusions. The figures are not exhaustive to demonstrate recent fault activity, English is poor as well. Since the scientific approach and applied methods are fairly valid, I think that it should be resubmitted after major revisions. Other comments are annotated in the attached file.

but the

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro De Donatis, 12 Aug 2021
  
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is very poor and do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is just the beginning of this study and wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC1
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Mauro De Donatis, 14 Aug 2021
  We thank a lot this anonymous reviewer, because his/her work is very detailed and could give us the opportunity to improve our work. He/she highlighted quite well the weaknesses of our paper. However, we could reply that this attempt of find the traces of an historical earthquake in this setting is based on some evidences not always very clear because erased and hidden by the time.
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is not so clear and it do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is at the beginning and it wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  We think those are the main reasons why this paper could seem “weak” for the “lack of robust data” and “surficial” disserted.
  
  Specific comments reply
  We will try to follow the indication rewriting the abstract
  
  We are going to insert a new figure showing the relationships and positioning in the tectonic framework of the structures related to Norcia 2016 events and Cagli 1781 earthquake. We will add also some paragraphs explain this point.
  
  In the “tectonic setting” section we reported the main interpretation of this part of the chain with a large number of cited papers.
  
  All the evidences on recent fault extension that could be found on the ground have been referred. The Quaternary deposits involvement could be verified with direct trenches and other geophysical methods, but we could not achieve it. About the interpretative cross-sections (Fig.10) with relationships among ATF, recent normal faults and earthquakes could be debated. However they remain interpretations, as well explained in the text, like the ones already published by others authors.
  
  Sections 5 and 6 report all the new data, observations and evidence. We think those are distinguished clearly enough. About our previous work (De Donatis et al., 2020), that was a methodological paper reporting some of the point of the ones we discuss now, just to explain the methods.
  
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on se-2021-87 - Anonymous Reviewer #2', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Aug 2021
General comments

In this work, the Authors attempt to provide evidence of active tectonics along surveyed normal faults in central Apennines (Mt Nerone sector, Umbria-Marche regions) by gathering information from different approaches ( i.e., field survey, geomorphology, drone surveys, and ‘remote’ analysis of digital mapping). They integrate and compare the collected evidence with available geophysical data providing a re-interpretation of previously published seismic line and carrying on seismological analysis. They advance the possible association of the surveyed normal faults with recent seismicity as well as with one of the most energetic historical earthquakes that occurred in the sector, the 1781 Cagli (Mw 6.5), thus in the extensional seismotectonic setting of the central Apennines

The work addresses the interesting scientific question related to the possible activation of normal faults (hidden or not) eastward of the well-known Late Quaternary active extensional belt. The multidisciplinary methodology applied presents interesting potentiality to address the scientific problem in a sector (easterly of the Apenninic topographic high) where other ‘subtle’ evidence of active tectonics has been provided in the literature (e.g., ).

Nevertheless, in reading the manuscript, I had regrettably to raise major concerns which I summarize mainly in a lack of robust data in supporting the Authors’ interpretations and conclusions. This aspect combines with a quite surficial dissertation of the scientific problems (relevant to the paper’s topic) that are generically introduced and not adequately presented and investigated.

Technical comments mainly relate to Figures which are not exhaustive and helpful to point out the evidence of fault activity in the Late Quaternary. The language is not fluent and adequate for publication standards.

For these reasons, and notwithstanding the scientific question addressed by the work would be within the scope of SE, the manuscript is not ready for publication in its present form. I thus recommend major revisions before re-submission.

In the following, I detailed more specific comments and suggestions the Author may want to consider for the revision process.

Specific comments

The Abstract should be re-written in a way to provide a concise summary of the paper's aims and a quick, but effective, preview of the results.

In the manuscript, starting from the section ‘Introduction’, both the Cagli 1781 earthquake and the recent seismicity that occurred in central Italy (l’Aquila 2009, Norcia 2016) are mentioned to motivate the study. Nevertheless, the study area is not adequately framed in the seismotectonic setting the sequences belong to, in a way that is difficult (for readers who are not familiar with the sector) to understand where the study area locates with respect to the main extensional alignment as well as to the mentioned sequences. Since the aim of the work is to understand the ‘significance of a normal fault system in the recent seismotectonic setting of the Northern Umbria-Marche Apennines', I would suggest adding a paragraph (with related figure) reporting all information on available seismicity (historical and instrumental) as well as a general introduction on the seismogenic structures known for the area;

In the section ‘Tectonic Setting’ the Authors should provide a more detailed description of the extensional framework, which the study area is located within, avoiding confusion between the seismicity related to the east-dipping low-angle Alto-Tiberina fault (ATF) and that related to the west-dipping fault system.

Evidence of fault activity in the field is weak. This could be partly compensated for providing some spots on the knickpoints the Authors discuss in the text, for instance by showing longitudinal profiles or some pictures. The absence of evident offsetting in the Quaternary deposits and/or of a well-developed basin (at the faults’ hanging wall) might also account for incipient (young) faulting. Nevertheless, this absence could be overcome by showing at least an evident correlation with seismicity at depth. Unfortunately, the cross-section shown in the paper (Figure 10a) does not discriminate the seismicity located along the AFT from that possibly related (at depth) to the normal faults surveyed on the south-western slope of Mt Nerone. In addition, the section in Figure 10b seems more supportive of seismic activity nucleated along east-dipping fault planes than along west-dipping ones. I would also suggest providing and discussing a possible explanation on the evidence that the wide macroseismic field of the Cagli 1781 earthquake is completely located at the footwall of the fault system the Authors present in the paper, as well as to take into account of empirical relationship (e.g., ) in testing the coherence between the fault system geometry (length, offset) with the Cagli earthquake’s magnitude. A discussion of the interpretation provided by the Authors in comparison with different ones concerning the 1781 causative fault (e.g., compressional fault as in DISS ) is strongly suggested.

In general, more emphasis should be provided to novel data, making clearer the new outcomes presented in this work from those deriving from the literature (even with respect to De Donatis et al., 2020).

English language is poor and requires improvements sometimes even in the technical terminology.

Most of these comments and minor (technical) ones are also annotated in the pdf I have enclosed for this discussion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Mauro De Donatis, 14 Aug 2021
  We thank a lot this anonymous reviewer, because his/her work is very detailed and could give us the opportunity to improve our work. He/she highlighted quite well the weaknesses of our paper. However, we could reply that this attempt of find the traces of an historical earthquake in this setting is based on some evidences not always very clear because erased and hidden by the time.
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is not so clear and it do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is at the beginning and it wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  We think those are the main reasons why this paper could seem “weak” for the “lack of robust data” and “surficial” disserted.
  
  Specific comments reply
  We will try to follow the indication rewriting the abstract
  
  We are going to insert a new figure showing the relationships and positioning in the tectonic framework of the structures related to Norcia 2016 events and Cagli 1781 earthquake. We will add also some paragraphs explain this point.
  
  In the “tectonic setting” section we reported the main interpretation of this part of the chain with a large number of cited papers.
  
  All the evidences on recent fault extension that could be found on the ground have been referred. The Quaternary deposits involvement could be verified with direct trenches and other geophysical methods, but we could not achieve it. About the interpretative cross-sections (Fig.10) with relationships among ATF, recent normal faults and earthquakes could be debated. However they remain interpretations, as well explained in the text, like the ones already published by others authors.
  
  Sections 5 and 6 report all the new data, observations and evidence. We think those are distinguished clearly enough. About our previous work (De Donatis et al., 2020), that was a methodological paper reporting some of the point of the ones we discuss now, just to explain the methods.
  
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro De Donatis, 12 Aug 2021
  
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is very poor and do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is just the beginning of this study and wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC1
EC1:
'Recommendations on se-2021-87', Rita De Nardis, 24 Aug 2021

Dear Dr De Donatis and coauthors,

the outcome of the review process is not positive, the reviewers rose serious criticisms both on the scientific aspect and the formal presentation and they recommended major revisions. The manuscript should be substantially improved to be considered suitable for publication in Solid Earth.

I think that the reviewers made a good job and the revisions will provide a great guide for a revised manuscript. The provided suggestions are very important and must be taken seriously into account. I should be most grateful if you would consider these carefully, and develop and improve the manuscript accordingly.
Best Regards
Rita de Nardis

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-EC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro De Donatis, 12 Aug 2021
  
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is very poor and do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is just the beginning of this study and wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC1
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Mauro De Donatis, 14 Aug 2021
  We thank a lot this anonymous reviewer, because his/her work is very detailed and could give us the opportunity to improve our work. He/she highlighted quite well the weaknesses of our paper. However, we could reply that this attempt of find the traces of an historical earthquake in this setting is based on some evidences not always very clear because erased and hidden by the time.
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is not so clear and it do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is at the beginning and it wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  We think those are the main reasons why this paper could seem “weak” for the “lack of robust data” and “surficial” disserted.
  
  Specific comments reply
  We will try to follow the indication rewriting the abstract
  
  We are going to insert a new figure showing the relationships and positioning in the tectonic framework of the structures related to Norcia 2016 events and Cagli 1781 earthquake. We will add also some paragraphs explain this point.
  
  In the “tectonic setting” section we reported the main interpretation of this part of the chain with a large number of cited papers.
  
  All the evidences on recent fault extension that could be found on the ground have been referred. The Quaternary deposits involvement could be verified with direct trenches and other geophysical methods, but we could not achieve it. About the interpretative cross-sections (Fig.10) with relationships among ATF, recent normal faults and earthquakes could be debated. However they remain interpretations, as well explained in the text, like the ones already published by others authors.
  
  Sections 5 and 6 report all the new data, observations and evidence. We think those are distinguished clearly enough. About our previous work (De Donatis et al., 2020), that was a methodological paper reporting some of the point of the ones we discuss now, just to explain the methods.
  
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC2
- AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Mauro De Donatis, 08 Sep 2021
  
  Dear Rita De Nardis,
  we will try to improve the text according to the suggestions of the reviewers; for that need time to work on.
  I hope you can wait up to december because the work in the paper fights against teaching and other projects time.
  Please let us know which deadline you can propose. Thanks
  Best Regards
  Mauro De Donatis
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on se-2021-87', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jul 2021

The paper shows some interesting data on active tectonics in northern Apennines but the supporting data set seems a bit poor. Moreover, the arguments are exposed in a generic way and do not support completely the conclusions. The figures are not exhaustive to demonstrate recent fault activity, English is poor as well. Since the scientific approach and applied methods are fairly valid, I think that it should be resubmitted after major revisions. Other comments are annotated in the attached file.

but the

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro De Donatis, 12 Aug 2021
  
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is very poor and do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is just the beginning of this study and wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC1
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Mauro De Donatis, 14 Aug 2021
  We thank a lot this anonymous reviewer, because his/her work is very detailed and could give us the opportunity to improve our work. He/she highlighted quite well the weaknesses of our paper. However, we could reply that this attempt of find the traces of an historical earthquake in this setting is based on some evidences not always very clear because erased and hidden by the time.
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is not so clear and it do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is at the beginning and it wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  We think those are the main reasons why this paper could seem “weak” for the “lack of robust data” and “surficial” disserted.
  
  Specific comments reply
  We will try to follow the indication rewriting the abstract
  
  We are going to insert a new figure showing the relationships and positioning in the tectonic framework of the structures related to Norcia 2016 events and Cagli 1781 earthquake. We will add also some paragraphs explain this point.
  
  In the “tectonic setting” section we reported the main interpretation of this part of the chain with a large number of cited papers.
  
  All the evidences on recent fault extension that could be found on the ground have been referred. The Quaternary deposits involvement could be verified with direct trenches and other geophysical methods, but we could not achieve it. About the interpretative cross-sections (Fig.10) with relationships among ATF, recent normal faults and earthquakes could be debated. However they remain interpretations, as well explained in the text, like the ones already published by others authors.
  
  Sections 5 and 6 report all the new data, observations and evidence. We think those are distinguished clearly enough. About our previous work (De Donatis et al., 2020), that was a methodological paper reporting some of the point of the ones we discuss now, just to explain the methods.
  
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on se-2021-87 - Anonymous Reviewer #2', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Aug 2021
General comments

In this work, the Authors attempt to provide evidence of active tectonics along surveyed normal faults in central Apennines (Mt Nerone sector, Umbria-Marche regions) by gathering information from different approaches ( i.e., field survey, geomorphology, drone surveys, and ‘remote’ analysis of digital mapping). They integrate and compare the collected evidence with available geophysical data providing a re-interpretation of previously published seismic line and carrying on seismological analysis. They advance the possible association of the surveyed normal faults with recent seismicity as well as with one of the most energetic historical earthquakes that occurred in the sector, the 1781 Cagli (Mw 6.5), thus in the extensional seismotectonic setting of the central Apennines

The work addresses the interesting scientific question related to the possible activation of normal faults (hidden or not) eastward of the well-known Late Quaternary active extensional belt. The multidisciplinary methodology applied presents interesting potentiality to address the scientific problem in a sector (easterly of the Apenninic topographic high) where other ‘subtle’ evidence of active tectonics has been provided in the literature (e.g., ).

Nevertheless, in reading the manuscript, I had regrettably to raise major concerns which I summarize mainly in a lack of robust data in supporting the Authors’ interpretations and conclusions. This aspect combines with a quite surficial dissertation of the scientific problems (relevant to the paper’s topic) that are generically introduced and not adequately presented and investigated.

Technical comments mainly relate to Figures which are not exhaustive and helpful to point out the evidence of fault activity in the Late Quaternary. The language is not fluent and adequate for publication standards.

For these reasons, and notwithstanding the scientific question addressed by the work would be within the scope of SE, the manuscript is not ready for publication in its present form. I thus recommend major revisions before re-submission.

In the following, I detailed more specific comments and suggestions the Author may want to consider for the revision process.

Specific comments

The Abstract should be re-written in a way to provide a concise summary of the paper's aims and a quick, but effective, preview of the results.

In the manuscript, starting from the section ‘Introduction’, both the Cagli 1781 earthquake and the recent seismicity that occurred in central Italy (l’Aquila 2009, Norcia 2016) are mentioned to motivate the study. Nevertheless, the study area is not adequately framed in the seismotectonic setting the sequences belong to, in a way that is difficult (for readers who are not familiar with the sector) to understand where the study area locates with respect to the main extensional alignment as well as to the mentioned sequences. Since the aim of the work is to understand the ‘significance of a normal fault system in the recent seismotectonic setting of the Northern Umbria-Marche Apennines', I would suggest adding a paragraph (with related figure) reporting all information on available seismicity (historical and instrumental) as well as a general introduction on the seismogenic structures known for the area;

In the section ‘Tectonic Setting’ the Authors should provide a more detailed description of the extensional framework, which the study area is located within, avoiding confusion between the seismicity related to the east-dipping low-angle Alto-Tiberina fault (ATF) and that related to the west-dipping fault system.

Evidence of fault activity in the field is weak. This could be partly compensated for providing some spots on the knickpoints the Authors discuss in the text, for instance by showing longitudinal profiles or some pictures. The absence of evident offsetting in the Quaternary deposits and/or of a well-developed basin (at the faults’ hanging wall) might also account for incipient (young) faulting. Nevertheless, this absence could be overcome by showing at least an evident correlation with seismicity at depth. Unfortunately, the cross-section shown in the paper (Figure 10a) does not discriminate the seismicity located along the AFT from that possibly related (at depth) to the normal faults surveyed on the south-western slope of Mt Nerone. In addition, the section in Figure 10b seems more supportive of seismic activity nucleated along east-dipping fault planes than along west-dipping ones. I would also suggest providing and discussing a possible explanation on the evidence that the wide macroseismic field of the Cagli 1781 earthquake is completely located at the footwall of the fault system the Authors present in the paper, as well as to take into account of empirical relationship (e.g., ) in testing the coherence between the fault system geometry (length, offset) with the Cagli earthquake’s magnitude. A discussion of the interpretation provided by the Authors in comparison with different ones concerning the 1781 causative fault (e.g., compressional fault as in DISS ) is strongly suggested.

In general, more emphasis should be provided to novel data, making clearer the new outcomes presented in this work from those deriving from the literature (even with respect to De Donatis et al., 2020).

English language is poor and requires improvements sometimes even in the technical terminology.

Most of these comments and minor (technical) ones are also annotated in the pdf I have enclosed for this discussion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Mauro De Donatis, 14 Aug 2021
  We thank a lot this anonymous reviewer, because his/her work is very detailed and could give us the opportunity to improve our work. He/she highlighted quite well the weaknesses of our paper. However, we could reply that this attempt of find the traces of an historical earthquake in this setting is based on some evidences not always very clear because erased and hidden by the time.
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is not so clear and it do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is at the beginning and it wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  We think those are the main reasons why this paper could seem “weak” for the “lack of robust data” and “surficial” disserted.
  
  Specific comments reply
  We will try to follow the indication rewriting the abstract
  
  We are going to insert a new figure showing the relationships and positioning in the tectonic framework of the structures related to Norcia 2016 events and Cagli 1781 earthquake. We will add also some paragraphs explain this point.
  
  In the “tectonic setting” section we reported the main interpretation of this part of the chain with a large number of cited papers.
  
  All the evidences on recent fault extension that could be found on the ground have been referred. The Quaternary deposits involvement could be verified with direct trenches and other geophysical methods, but we could not achieve it. About the interpretative cross-sections (Fig.10) with relationships among ATF, recent normal faults and earthquakes could be debated. However they remain interpretations, as well explained in the text, like the ones already published by others authors.
  
  Sections 5 and 6 report all the new data, observations and evidence. We think those are distinguished clearly enough. About our previous work (De Donatis et al., 2020), that was a methodological paper reporting some of the point of the ones we discuss now, just to explain the methods.
  
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro De Donatis, 12 Aug 2021
  
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is very poor and do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is just the beginning of this study and wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC1
EC1:
'Recommendations on se-2021-87', Rita De Nardis, 24 Aug 2021

Dear Dr De Donatis and coauthors,

the outcome of the review process is not positive, the reviewers rose serious criticisms both on the scientific aspect and the formal presentation and they recommended major revisions. The manuscript should be substantially improved to be considered suitable for publication in Solid Earth.

I think that the reviewers made a good job and the revisions will provide a great guide for a revised manuscript. The provided suggestions are very important and must be taken seriously into account. I should be most grateful if you would consider these carefully, and develop and improve the manuscript accordingly.
Best Regards
Rita de Nardis

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-EC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro De Donatis, 12 Aug 2021
  
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is very poor and do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is just the beginning of this study and wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC1
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Mauro De Donatis, 14 Aug 2021
  We thank a lot this anonymous reviewer, because his/her work is very detailed and could give us the opportunity to improve our work. He/she highlighted quite well the weaknesses of our paper. However, we could reply that this attempt of find the traces of an historical earthquake in this setting is based on some evidences not always very clear because erased and hidden by the time.
  One of the aims, I would say the main one, of this paper is to start a debate on the ground evidences of the strongest earthquake event of the Northern Marche region. No other authors worked on this topic because, I think, the evidence is not so clear and it do not allow to get quality data as well as the recent events (L’Aquila 2009, Norcia 20016).
  This contribution is at the beginning and it wants to stimulate other researchers more experienced to bring their contributions. We are aware that this work is not exhaustive, and some part must be deepened and extended to a larger sector. Nevertheless, we tried to offer some new sight on the mapped structures in an extensional tectonic framework very similar to the one interpreted for the southern Marche region.
  We think those are the main reasons why this paper could seem “weak” for the “lack of robust data” and “surficial” disserted.
  
  Specific comments reply
  We will try to follow the indication rewriting the abstract
  
  We are going to insert a new figure showing the relationships and positioning in the tectonic framework of the structures related to Norcia 2016 events and Cagli 1781 earthquake. We will add also some paragraphs explain this point.
  
  In the “tectonic setting” section we reported the main interpretation of this part of the chain with a large number of cited papers.
  
  All the evidences on recent fault extension that could be found on the ground have been referred. The Quaternary deposits involvement could be verified with direct trenches and other geophysical methods, but we could not achieve it. About the interpretative cross-sections (Fig.10) with relationships among ATF, recent normal faults and earthquakes could be debated. However they remain interpretations, as well explained in the text, like the ones already published by others authors.
  
  Sections 5 and 6 report all the new data, observations and evidence. We think those are distinguished clearly enough. About our previous work (De Donatis et al., 2020), that was a methodological paper reporting some of the point of the ones we discuss now, just to explain the methods.
  
  About English language, we have submitted to a professional (paid) language revision. Anyway, we will try to improve in a next version.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC2
- AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Mauro De Donatis, 08 Sep 2021
  
  Dear Rita De Nardis,
  we will try to improve the text according to the suggestions of the reviewers; for that need time to work on.
  I hope you can wait up to december because the work in the paper fights against teaching and other projects time.
  Please let us know which deadline you can propose. Thanks
  Best Regards
  Mauro De Donatis
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-87-AC3

Mauro De Donatis, Giulio Fabrizio Pappafico, Sara Susini, Mauro Alberti, Nelson Muñoz Guerrero, and Francesco Ottaviani

Viewed

Total article views: 1,048 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
726	275	47	1,048	35	43

HTML: 726
PDF: 275
XML: 47
Total: 1,048
BibTeX: 35
EndNote: 43

Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Jul 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2021	222	42	3	267
Aug 2021	107	26	6	139
Sep 2021	47	14	4	65
Oct 2021	18	9	0	27
Nov 2021	11	11	2	24
Dec 2021	12	8	1	21
Jan 2022	18	1	0	19
Feb 2022	17	6	1	24
Mar 2022	11	5	2	18
Apr 2022	9	0	9
May 2022	3	1	1	5
Jun 2022	2	1	3
Jul 2022	5	0	5
Aug 2022	6	3	0	9
Sep 2022	4	4	0	8
Oct 2022	9	3	1	13
Nov 2022	10	5	0	15
Dec 2022	19	3	0	22
Jan 2023	7	0	7
Feb 2023	8	4	0	12
Mar 2023	16	2	0	18
Apr 2023	3	6	0	9
May 2023	6	1	3	10
Jun 2023	8	4	2	14
Jul 2023	12	16	0	28
Aug 2023	5	9	1	15
Sep 2023	6	4	1	11
Oct 2023	7	2	1	10
Nov 2023	8	3	0	11
Dec 2023	8	2	0	10
Jan 2024	5	4	0	9
Feb 2024	18	8	1	27
Mar 2024	12	5	3	20
Apr 2024	14	8	2	24
May 2024	12	13	5	30
Jun 2024	9	9	2	20
Jul 2024	10	1	11
Aug 2024	11	10	1	22
Sep 2024	6	5	0	11
Oct 2024	9	0	9
Nov 2024	7	8	2	17
Dec 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Jul 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2021	222	42	3	267
Aug 2021	107	26	6	139
Sep 2021	47	14	4	65
Oct 2021	18	9	0	27
Nov 2021	11	11	2	24
Dec 2021	12	8	1	21
Jan 2022	18	1	0	19
Feb 2022	17	6	1	24
Mar 2022	11	5	2	18
Apr 2022	9	0	9
May 2022	3	1	1	5
Jun 2022	2	1	3
Jul 2022	5	0	5
Aug 2022	6	3	0	9
Sep 2022	4	4	0	8
Oct 2022	9	3	1	13
Nov 2022	10	5	0	15
Dec 2022	19	3	0	22
Jan 2023	7	0	7
Feb 2023	8	4	0	12
Mar 2023	16	2	0	18
Apr 2023	3	6	0	9
May 2023	6	1	3	10
Jun 2023	8	4	2	14
Jul 2023	12	16	0	28
Aug 2023	5	9	1	15
Sep 2023	6	4	1	11
Oct 2023	7	2	1	10
Nov 2023	8	3	0	11
Dec 2023	8	2	0	10
Jan 2024	5	4	0	9
Feb 2024	18	8	1	27
Mar 2024	12	5	3	20
Apr 2024	14	8	2	24
May 2024	12	13	5	30
Jun 2024	9	9	2	20
Jul 2024	10	1	11
Aug 2024	11	10	1	22
Sep 2024	6	5	0	11
Oct 2024	9	0	9
Nov 2024	7	8	2	17
Dec 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,001 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,001 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Cited

Latest update: 13 Dec 2024

Short summary

This original work starts from the need to investigate the possible ground effects of the historical Cagli earthquake (June 3, 1781). Some geological and geomorphological evidences were clear that testify a tectonic behaviour very similar to those of the recent earthquake of 2016 in central Italy. In the light of field observations, seismic data and reinterpreted previous works, this sector shows a current extensional tectonics, in accordance with the interpretations of some recent research.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0

A Normal Faults System in the Monte Nerone area and its significance in the recent seismo-tectonic setting of the Northern Umbria-Marche Apennines (Italy)

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Cited

1 citations as recorded by crossref.