the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Aug 2023
Lahar events in the last 2,000 years from Vesuvius eruptions. Part 1: Distribution and impact on densely-inhabited territory estimated from field data analysis
Abstract. Lahars represent some of the most dangerous phenomena in volcanic areas for their destructive power, causing dramatic changes in the landscape with no premonitory signs and impacting on population and infrastructures. In this regard, the Campanian Plain turns out to be very prone to the development of these phenomena, since the slopes of the Somma-Vesuvius and Campi Flegrei volcanoes, along with the Apennine reliefs are mantled by pyroclastic deposits that can be easily remobilised, especially after intense and/or prolonged rainfall.
This study focuses on the analysis of the pyroclastic fall and flow deposits and of the syn- and post-eruptive lahar deposits related to two sub-Plinian eruptions of Vesuvius, 472 AD (Pollena) and 1631. To begin with, historical and field data from the existing literature and from hundreds of outcrops were collected and organized into a database, which was integrated with several new pieces of data. In particular, stratigraphic, sedimentological (facies analysis and laboratory) and archaeological analyses were carried out, in addition to rock magnetic investigations and impact parameter calculations. The new data are mainly referred to the finding of ash beds in more distal areas, which was included into new isopach maps for the two sub-Plinian eruptions.
The results show that for both the eruptions the distribution of the primary deposits is wider than the one previously known. A consequence of these results is that a wider areal impact should be expected in terms of civil protection, as the sub-Plinian scenario is the reference one for a future large eruption of Vesuvius. Such distribution of the pyroclastic deposits directly affects the one of the lahar deposits, also because a significant remobilization took place during and after the studied eruptions which involved the distal phreatomagmatic ash. From these integrated analyses, it was possible to constrain the timing of the deposition and the kind of deposits remobilized (pyroclastic fall vs. flow), as well as was possible to calculate the velocities and dynamic pressures of the lahars, and ultimately infer the lahar transport and emplacement mechanisms.
The multidisciplinary approach adopted in this work shows how it is crucial to assess the impact of lahars in densely populated areas even at distances of several to tens of km from active volcanoes. This especially applies to large parts of the densely populated areas around Somma-Vesuvius up to the nearby Apennine valleys.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(6607 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6607 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1302', Ulrich Kueppers, 03 Sep 2023
Dear Mauro and colleagues,
this is an interesting article based on an astonishing effort of field work. Congratulations. It is beyond doubt that a thorough re-appraisal of volcanic deposits is required for enhanced risk analysis.
I have attached an annotated pdf with many comments and change suggestions. I have three main points:
1. Overall, I would like to see some restructuring of the manuscript as many figures in the Appendix would help the reader to better follow your reasoning. Please add several of them in the main body of the manuscript and not only the many maps with outcrop locations.
2. please add definitions to terms you are using that may be used in a subjective way (e.g. syn- and post-eruptive lahars) or numbers with units to statements that you are using in a poorly qualitative way (fine, finer...)
3. being a non-native English speaker myself, I still feel that the manuscript could benefit from a language check.
Best regards.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1302/egusphere-2023-1302-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1302', Lucia Capra, 05 Oct 2023
The paper represents an interesting contribution; new stratigraphic data are presented here for the Pollena and the 1631 plinian eruptions and associated lahars, based on which a new impact area is defined, with important implications on hazard assessment.
I think that authors should better describe their initial assumption and improve the description and interpretation, which are now quite poorly justified or vague. Below are some major points. It is an interesting paper, but it needs to be improved before its publication. Some figures need to be improved. The annotated PDF includes several suggestions.
Terminology. I consider that authors should better define the terminology here used, especially for syn- post and inter-eruptive lahar. Post and inter-eruptive lahars do not necessarily point to similar events. Post-lahars can occur a few months or years after the eruption when the landscape is still responding to the hydrological and sedimentary-yield consequences of the eruption, and lahars are still remobilizing the primary pyroclastic deposits only. Inter-eruptive lahars occur without a direct volcanic influence. I have suggested some references to this point. I understand that authors refer to syn-eruptive lahar as those that originated from the primary pyroclastic deposits only, but the timing can be important for hazard assessment purposes.
Lahar deposit textures are poorly described, please add a figure illustrating the main facies here described (line 377). En-masse deposition here described for lahars is poorly justified and contrasts with several recent studies. Water escape features are not evidence of en-masse deposition. A few descriptions and pictures are included in the appendix; I consider more useful for the reader to add some figures in the main text, is quite annoying to go to the appendix to understand the main text. I suggest including a simple table with a picture of each facies here described and a resume of their main characteristics.
Authors should better describe the componentry of both Pollena and 1631 eruptions, their differences, and how they were used to discriminate syn-eruptive lahars from each one of these eruptions or if stratigraphic relationships were the main criteria. Right now is written as the reader perfectly knows the stratigraphy of the Somma-Vesuvius area.
I suggest authors avoid mixing descriptions with interpretations.
Figure 7 is not a distribution map; is a map that shows the outcrops where lahars from Pollena eruption are outcropping. This map does not allow the reader to understand the source area of lahars nor how the volume of these lahar deposits was estimated. I suggest at least including as a layer the drainage system. And what does the 0 value mean in the thickness scale? In the map, there are several points (white dots) with this value. The same observations for the figure of the lahars associated with the 1631 eruption.
It is not completely clear to me as syn-eruptive and “post(inter)” eruptive lahars from Pollena eruption are discriminated. One of the main parameters is that post-eruptive events crop on top of the humified surface or soil layers with evidence of anthropic use, while syn-eruptive lahar deposits lay directly on top of the primary deposits (line 405). Can authors better explain this point as, for example, for the Avella area, were both syn-eruptive and post-eruptive lahars of the Pollena eruptions are described? Also, it is not clear how the outcrops in the SW area (white dots in figure 6) are interpreted as syn-eruptive if primary deposits from Pollena are not mapped here (based on Figure 5).
Line 422. Why post-eruptive (here consider as inter-eruptive) lahar are still associated with the Pollena eruption and defined as post only because they contain or are overlaid by fragments from Mercato and Avellino eruptions? Just as an example, at Colima volcano, all syn- eruptive, post or inter-eruptive lahars from recent activity contain pumice fragments from the 1913 plinian eruption. Syn-eruptive lahars can erode the substratum during their emplacement. Finally, why are post(inter)-eruptive lahars associated with a specific eruption? Still unclear how is the timing between a syn-eruptive and a post(inter)-eruptive lahar here considered if the post-eruptive events are still correlated to an eruption. Authors can solve this problem by changing the terminology here used and distinguishing between post and inter-eruptive.
Some lahars from the Valle de Avella and Somma-Vesuvius area show up to 50% of the mud fractions, it could be interesting to define the % of silt and clay, as inter-eruptive lahars could also be discriminated based on their granulometry.
Authors should better explain how the lahar volume is here estimated as the map distribution only shows their outcrops. And if the distribution of fall and PDC deposits from Pollena and 1631 eruptions are here redefined, it could be interesting if authors can estimate the new volume.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1302/egusphere-2023-1302-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1302', Anonymous Referee #3, 15 Oct 2023
The Manuscript contains a lot of information about occurrence of volcaniclastic flows/lahars in the Vesuvian area (Italy). The work is potentially of interest for an international audience, but, at present, it is too confused and in some part not consistent with current models and physics to be recommended for publication as it is.
The paper is very long and in some part very hard to read due to the long description of data that may be better organised in Tables. I refer in particular to the stratigraphic description and sedimentological analysis, which are not well organised. In particular, I found not appropriate for a paper dealing with stratigraphic analysis not to present photos of the most significant outcrops in the main text. Also, the lithofaces analysis is poorly significant as it is. This is because the lithofacoes codes are introduced without any explanation and they are not summarised in a table (shortening the description).
The grain size data of figure 11 are poorly descriptive if the finest part is not analysed. Also, some of the statistical parameters of Table 1 are not significant, being the distributions very far from gaussian-like.
A lot of inconsistencies are present throughout the manuscript (i.e. Somma-Vesuvius vs. Vesuvius, volcaniclastic flows vs lahars). They need to be accurately checked and corrected.
The calculation of the velocity and dynamic pressure is basically wrong, in absence of a detailed determination of the flow behaviour. The Authors assume the clasts are transported within the flow, but it may be not the case depending on flow conditions. Lahars can transport boulders as large as meters as passive load, solely due to the pore pressure within the underlying flow. On the other hand, it is not possible to derive the velocity of the flow from the deposit as it is presented, because simply it was zero at time of deposition. So, it is not possible to associate a dynamic parameter with a deposit location as in Figure 17.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1302-RC3 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1302/egusphere-2023-1302-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1302', Andrea Di Muro, 26 Dec 2023
Dear Mauro Antonio,
I’m happy to join the reviewers in stressing the importance of the work your team has performed and the high quality of the dataset you have integrated to build a very exhaustive study of lahar processes in the Vesuvius area. The review process has permitted to effectively integrate the suggestions and remarks of the three reviewers and I consider the paper can be accepted for publication. In order to produce a final version best conveying the important messages of your paper to a broad audience, I would like to suggest you to consider here below some minor modifications and suggestions.
A rapid submission of a final version integrating these suggestions will thus permit the review process of the three companion papers to be finalized basically synchronously.
Line 100: “Mobility” would imply long range transport capability, but in the sentence here it is unclear whether you are instead stressing that lahar triggering can occur also in distal areas (xx km from the summit Vesuvius crater); if this is correct, this term should be modified to express you are showing a large trigger area can be affected and not that flows have a large transport distance;
Line 108: unclear sentence; what does that mean “repeated lahar..episodes…stroke..its human settlements…evidencing attempts of resettlement”?
Line 640 “Both Acerra and Nola localities”; this is one of the many examples scattered in the whole paper and already pointed by the reviewers, where the sites are quoted but with no reference to a map, or (most important) explicit quotation of distance with respect to the volcano summit or to the location with respect to the primary deposits etc etc are reported; Reference sites are also described in detail in the appendix, but no distance is reported with respect to Vesuvius or other information able to help the reader to quickly locate the sites. This kind of sentences implies the reader has a good knowledge of the study area, but make the reading difficult for researchers knowing little about the Vesuvius area and related eruptions and request a frequent check in maps to locate the quoted sites; in order to improve the readability of the whole text, please integrate these basic information all along the whole paper, in order to help the reader to immediately locate the quoted areas/cities (“how far from Vesuvius is a given distal area”?) and thus better follow the line of reasoning presented in the text.
Fig. 17 Do the velocity values reported in the figure correspond to syn-eruptives or post-eruptive units? Do you find a correlation between deposit thickness and calculated velocity?
Line 861 : please delete the brackets enclosing the temperature value
>>Both Pollena and 1631 distribution maps suggest that for a given location, the thickness of post eruptive lahars is larger than that of syn-eruptive; if this is correct, this information could be better stressed, discussed and interpreted, a link with grain size could be made more explicit, if existing, and ,most important, the implications in terms of trigger processes and hazard included in the paper;
>>Magnetization study suggest that some units had emplacement temperatures above 100°C; the implication of that in terms of occurrence of vapour phase, sedimentary structures and transport properties should be discussed. Does that imply the fluid phase was multiphase? How is that included in the physical modelling?
Line 222 In spite of being Sarno one of the most affected municipalities, no reference to 1998 Sarno lahar events in terms of triggering, dynamics, sources, impact areas and deposit facies is offered in this paper. As this is one of the most recent and significant (including in terms of victims) events affecting the studied area, it is surprising the lack of explicit reference and comparison in the paper.
Looking forward receiving the final version of this important research paper,
With my best regards,
Andrea Di Muro
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1302-EC1 - AC2: 'reply for the editor', Mauro Di Vito, 27 Dec 2023
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Mauro Di Vito, 27 Dec 2023
Dear Editor
attached pleasse find the annotated pdf of our paper
I am sorry for the multiple posted file
Best
Mauro
-
EC2: 'Reply on AC3', Andrea Di Muro, 30 Dec 2023
Dear Mauro Di Vito and co-authors, thank you very much for the prompt and complete integration of my last suggestions to the reviewed version of the paper that I'm happy to accept for final publication; with my best regards,
Andrea Di Muro
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1302-EC2
-
EC2: 'Reply on AC3', Andrea Di Muro, 30 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1302', Ulrich Kueppers, 03 Sep 2023
Dear Mauro and colleagues,
this is an interesting article based on an astonishing effort of field work. Congratulations. It is beyond doubt that a thorough re-appraisal of volcanic deposits is required for enhanced risk analysis.
I have attached an annotated pdf with many comments and change suggestions. I have three main points:
1. Overall, I would like to see some restructuring of the manuscript as many figures in the Appendix would help the reader to better follow your reasoning. Please add several of them in the main body of the manuscript and not only the many maps with outcrop locations.
2. please add definitions to terms you are using that may be used in a subjective way (e.g. syn- and post-eruptive lahars) or numbers with units to statements that you are using in a poorly qualitative way (fine, finer...)
3. being a non-native English speaker myself, I still feel that the manuscript could benefit from a language check.
Best regards.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1302/egusphere-2023-1302-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1302', Lucia Capra, 05 Oct 2023
The paper represents an interesting contribution; new stratigraphic data are presented here for the Pollena and the 1631 plinian eruptions and associated lahars, based on which a new impact area is defined, with important implications on hazard assessment.
I think that authors should better describe their initial assumption and improve the description and interpretation, which are now quite poorly justified or vague. Below are some major points. It is an interesting paper, but it needs to be improved before its publication. Some figures need to be improved. The annotated PDF includes several suggestions.
Terminology. I consider that authors should better define the terminology here used, especially for syn- post and inter-eruptive lahar. Post and inter-eruptive lahars do not necessarily point to similar events. Post-lahars can occur a few months or years after the eruption when the landscape is still responding to the hydrological and sedimentary-yield consequences of the eruption, and lahars are still remobilizing the primary pyroclastic deposits only. Inter-eruptive lahars occur without a direct volcanic influence. I have suggested some references to this point. I understand that authors refer to syn-eruptive lahar as those that originated from the primary pyroclastic deposits only, but the timing can be important for hazard assessment purposes.
Lahar deposit textures are poorly described, please add a figure illustrating the main facies here described (line 377). En-masse deposition here described for lahars is poorly justified and contrasts with several recent studies. Water escape features are not evidence of en-masse deposition. A few descriptions and pictures are included in the appendix; I consider more useful for the reader to add some figures in the main text, is quite annoying to go to the appendix to understand the main text. I suggest including a simple table with a picture of each facies here described and a resume of their main characteristics.
Authors should better describe the componentry of both Pollena and 1631 eruptions, their differences, and how they were used to discriminate syn-eruptive lahars from each one of these eruptions or if stratigraphic relationships were the main criteria. Right now is written as the reader perfectly knows the stratigraphy of the Somma-Vesuvius area.
I suggest authors avoid mixing descriptions with interpretations.
Figure 7 is not a distribution map; is a map that shows the outcrops where lahars from Pollena eruption are outcropping. This map does not allow the reader to understand the source area of lahars nor how the volume of these lahar deposits was estimated. I suggest at least including as a layer the drainage system. And what does the 0 value mean in the thickness scale? In the map, there are several points (white dots) with this value. The same observations for the figure of the lahars associated with the 1631 eruption.
It is not completely clear to me as syn-eruptive and “post(inter)” eruptive lahars from Pollena eruption are discriminated. One of the main parameters is that post-eruptive events crop on top of the humified surface or soil layers with evidence of anthropic use, while syn-eruptive lahar deposits lay directly on top of the primary deposits (line 405). Can authors better explain this point as, for example, for the Avella area, were both syn-eruptive and post-eruptive lahars of the Pollena eruptions are described? Also, it is not clear how the outcrops in the SW area (white dots in figure 6) are interpreted as syn-eruptive if primary deposits from Pollena are not mapped here (based on Figure 5).
Line 422. Why post-eruptive (here consider as inter-eruptive) lahar are still associated with the Pollena eruption and defined as post only because they contain or are overlaid by fragments from Mercato and Avellino eruptions? Just as an example, at Colima volcano, all syn- eruptive, post or inter-eruptive lahars from recent activity contain pumice fragments from the 1913 plinian eruption. Syn-eruptive lahars can erode the substratum during their emplacement. Finally, why are post(inter)-eruptive lahars associated with a specific eruption? Still unclear how is the timing between a syn-eruptive and a post(inter)-eruptive lahar here considered if the post-eruptive events are still correlated to an eruption. Authors can solve this problem by changing the terminology here used and distinguishing between post and inter-eruptive.
Some lahars from the Valle de Avella and Somma-Vesuvius area show up to 50% of the mud fractions, it could be interesting to define the % of silt and clay, as inter-eruptive lahars could also be discriminated based on their granulometry.
Authors should better explain how the lahar volume is here estimated as the map distribution only shows their outcrops. And if the distribution of fall and PDC deposits from Pollena and 1631 eruptions are here redefined, it could be interesting if authors can estimate the new volume.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1302/egusphere-2023-1302-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1302', Anonymous Referee #3, 15 Oct 2023
The Manuscript contains a lot of information about occurrence of volcaniclastic flows/lahars in the Vesuvian area (Italy). The work is potentially of interest for an international audience, but, at present, it is too confused and in some part not consistent with current models and physics to be recommended for publication as it is.
The paper is very long and in some part very hard to read due to the long description of data that may be better organised in Tables. I refer in particular to the stratigraphic description and sedimentological analysis, which are not well organised. In particular, I found not appropriate for a paper dealing with stratigraphic analysis not to present photos of the most significant outcrops in the main text. Also, the lithofaces analysis is poorly significant as it is. This is because the lithofacoes codes are introduced without any explanation and they are not summarised in a table (shortening the description).
The grain size data of figure 11 are poorly descriptive if the finest part is not analysed. Also, some of the statistical parameters of Table 1 are not significant, being the distributions very far from gaussian-like.
A lot of inconsistencies are present throughout the manuscript (i.e. Somma-Vesuvius vs. Vesuvius, volcaniclastic flows vs lahars). They need to be accurately checked and corrected.
The calculation of the velocity and dynamic pressure is basically wrong, in absence of a detailed determination of the flow behaviour. The Authors assume the clasts are transported within the flow, but it may be not the case depending on flow conditions. Lahars can transport boulders as large as meters as passive load, solely due to the pore pressure within the underlying flow. On the other hand, it is not possible to derive the velocity of the flow from the deposit as it is presented, because simply it was zero at time of deposition. So, it is not possible to associate a dynamic parameter with a deposit location as in Figure 17.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1302-RC3 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1302/egusphere-2023-1302-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mauro Di Vito, 19 Dec 2023
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1302', Andrea Di Muro, 26 Dec 2023
Dear Mauro Antonio,
I’m happy to join the reviewers in stressing the importance of the work your team has performed and the high quality of the dataset you have integrated to build a very exhaustive study of lahar processes in the Vesuvius area. The review process has permitted to effectively integrate the suggestions and remarks of the three reviewers and I consider the paper can be accepted for publication. In order to produce a final version best conveying the important messages of your paper to a broad audience, I would like to suggest you to consider here below some minor modifications and suggestions.
A rapid submission of a final version integrating these suggestions will thus permit the review process of the three companion papers to be finalized basically synchronously.
Line 100: “Mobility” would imply long range transport capability, but in the sentence here it is unclear whether you are instead stressing that lahar triggering can occur also in distal areas (xx km from the summit Vesuvius crater); if this is correct, this term should be modified to express you are showing a large trigger area can be affected and not that flows have a large transport distance;
Line 108: unclear sentence; what does that mean “repeated lahar..episodes…stroke..its human settlements…evidencing attempts of resettlement”?
Line 640 “Both Acerra and Nola localities”; this is one of the many examples scattered in the whole paper and already pointed by the reviewers, where the sites are quoted but with no reference to a map, or (most important) explicit quotation of distance with respect to the volcano summit or to the location with respect to the primary deposits etc etc are reported; Reference sites are also described in detail in the appendix, but no distance is reported with respect to Vesuvius or other information able to help the reader to quickly locate the sites. This kind of sentences implies the reader has a good knowledge of the study area, but make the reading difficult for researchers knowing little about the Vesuvius area and related eruptions and request a frequent check in maps to locate the quoted sites; in order to improve the readability of the whole text, please integrate these basic information all along the whole paper, in order to help the reader to immediately locate the quoted areas/cities (“how far from Vesuvius is a given distal area”?) and thus better follow the line of reasoning presented in the text.
Fig. 17 Do the velocity values reported in the figure correspond to syn-eruptives or post-eruptive units? Do you find a correlation between deposit thickness and calculated velocity?
Line 861 : please delete the brackets enclosing the temperature value
>>Both Pollena and 1631 distribution maps suggest that for a given location, the thickness of post eruptive lahars is larger than that of syn-eruptive; if this is correct, this information could be better stressed, discussed and interpreted, a link with grain size could be made more explicit, if existing, and ,most important, the implications in terms of trigger processes and hazard included in the paper;
>>Magnetization study suggest that some units had emplacement temperatures above 100°C; the implication of that in terms of occurrence of vapour phase, sedimentary structures and transport properties should be discussed. Does that imply the fluid phase was multiphase? How is that included in the physical modelling?
Line 222 In spite of being Sarno one of the most affected municipalities, no reference to 1998 Sarno lahar events in terms of triggering, dynamics, sources, impact areas and deposit facies is offered in this paper. As this is one of the most recent and significant (including in terms of victims) events affecting the studied area, it is surprising the lack of explicit reference and comparison in the paper.
Looking forward receiving the final version of this important research paper,
With my best regards,
Andrea Di Muro
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1302-EC1 - AC2: 'reply for the editor', Mauro Di Vito, 27 Dec 2023
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Mauro Di Vito, 27 Dec 2023
Dear Editor
attached pleasse find the annotated pdf of our paper
I am sorry for the multiple posted file
Best
Mauro
-
EC2: 'Reply on AC3', Andrea Di Muro, 30 Dec 2023
Dear Mauro Di Vito and co-authors, thank you very much for the prompt and complete integration of my last suggestions to the reviewed version of the paper that I'm happy to accept for final publication; with my best regards,
Andrea Di Muro
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1302-EC2
-
EC2: 'Reply on AC3', Andrea Di Muro, 30 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 369 | 141 | 33 | 543 | 13 | 15 |
- HTML: 369
- PDF: 141
- XML: 33
- Total: 543
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Lahar events in the last 2000 years from Vesuvius eruptions – Part 3: Hazard assessment over the Campanian Plain L. Sandri et al. 10.5194/se-15-459-2024
- Lahar events in the last 2000 years from Vesuvius eruptions – Part 2: Formulation and validation of a computational model based on a shallow layer approach M. de' Michieli Vitturi et al. 10.5194/se-15-437-2024
Ilaria Rucco
Sandro de Vita
Domenico M. Doronzo
Marina Bisson
Mattia de' Michieli Vitturi
Mauro Rosi
Laura Sandri
Giovanni Zanchetta
Elena Zanella
Antonio Costa
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6607 KB) - Metadata XML