the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Unveiling Etna volcano flank dynamics from new paleoseismological findings along the Fiandaca Fault
Abstract. We present the first paleoseismological results along the Fiandaca Fault, the source of the 26 December 2018, Mw 4.9 Fleri earthquake. We excavated two exploratory trenches along the coseismic surface ruptures at the Collegio Fiandaca site. Analysis of trench walls allow identifying, besides the 2018 event, two historical surface faulting events. The youngest one occurred in the period 1281–1926 CE, and most likely during the1894 Fiandaca earthquake. The oldest one, previously unknown, occurred in the Early Middle Ages (757–894 CE). This paleoseismic evidence strongly suggest increased seismic activity along the Fiandaca Fault in the last centuries. In order to verify this hypothesis, we conducted detailed morphotectonic analyses and throw rate measurements along the Fiandaca and other capable normal faults in the Mt. Etna eastern flank. Throw rates mean values show an increase from 1.4 mm/yr during the 15–3.9 ka time interval to 3.4 mm/yr between 3.9 ka and the Greek-Roman period, with a further increase since the late Middle Ages, reaching 10 mm/yr. This trend suggests a very recent growth in flank instability, in agreement with current geodetic data but also with historical eruptive activity. These findings highlight an increase of the associated geological hazards along the inhabited eastern flank, emphasizing the need for further research and a multi-hazard approach to risk assessment and land planning for Mt. Etna and similar volcanic regions.
- Preprint
(3848 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2970 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4078', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 May 2025
General comment
The manuscript presents an interesting study on the paleoseismology of the Fiandaca Fault. The investigation is aimed at extending back to the past the rich dataset of historical earthquake ruptures already documented in the literature since mid-1800s. The manuscript is very long and containes a lot of information not needed for the work; this makes it not easy to be read and somewhat dispersive.
The main issue I see is that the manuscript wants to cover topics not relevant for the target stated in the title. In my opinion the valuable contribute related to the paleoseismological investigation is diminished by the attempt to enlarge their conclusions to the whole Etna domain. This introduces a series of speculations not really supported by the study, which are not significant for the work.
I recommend to focus on the analysed fault emphasizing both the paleoseismological and morphological point of views. To do this, I should avoid other not relevant considerations that confuse the reader.
In the following points I indicated some general considerations, whereas in the revised manuscript you will find specific comments.
1. Introduction
In general the authors quote all the references available in the literature; this produces long citations continuously interrupting the text; hard to follow. Many of these references are dated and already cited in more recent papers; please keep only those significant for framing the work (also for other chapters).
2. Geological setting
I consider this chapter not really useful for the aims of the work, at least in this form. Many data and information can be synthetized and referred to well-known papers describing in a complete way the geological and seismotectonic features of the Etna region. Also the description of the volcanic activity is unuseless and looks like a volcanological scholar book. Finally, the description of flank instability and the faults involved in this process can be reduced and aimed at understanding the general geodynamic framework of the area.
3 Geologic features around the Fiandaca Fault
This is an important part of the paper useful for interpretating the paleoseismological and morphological analyses. I think that the authors could also adavantage of a recent revision of the local geology made by Branca (see in Azzaro et al., 2022). Regarding the paragraph 3.2 (Morphotectonic and historical seismicity), I recommend not to add new fault names compared to the previous literature since this produces uncertainty and misleading in the readers, mainly professionals who work in the area and use the scientific literature.
5 Trenching site results
This chapter is the core of the manuscript. It contains the essential information to reconstruct the past faulting history but some passages are not clear to me. For example, FIA 1 N-wall1, FIA 1 S-wall2 (F4-F5) show dislocations that can be interpreted ambiguously: typically in volcanic terrains the surface of the lava flows is very rough and is frequently broken by primary large fractures due to cooling and residual movement. This results in uneven horizons. How do the authors exclude this?
6 Trench restoration and paleoseismic sequence
At line 401 you affirm that "the highlighted sequence of earthquakes strongly suggests an increase in fault activation over time". I strongly disagree with you. You cannot compare a very detailed historical dataset produced by observers in a densely inhabited area with faulting evidence observed in a trench. Fractures can jump the site explored by the trench so the record of event horizons is not complete.
Furthermore, in our specific case most of the more recent event represented in Fig. 12 ruptured only minor patches of the Fiandaca Fault, while only the largest ones (1894, 2018) ruptured the whole structure. So in any case you could observe the evidence of this smaller events in the trench. This is a critical point on which you base the idea of the throw rate increse over time.
I consider this assumption too strong for including even other faults in your hypothesis.
7 Throw rates analysis and flank dynamics
Paragraph 7.1 is an important part of the manuscript since it tries to link the results of the trenches with the geological evolution of the fault. I also suggest to consider in the discussion findings coming from the papers by Romagnoli et al. (2021*), Tortorici et al. (2021**) and Azzaro et al. (2022), who investigated the morphological evolution of the Fiandaca Fault vs lava flow coverage.
*Romagnoli, G., Pavano, F., Tortorici, G., & Catalano, S. (2021). The 2018 Mount Etna earthquake (Mw 4.9): Depicting a natural model of a composite fault system from coseismic surface breaks. Tectonics, 40(5), e2020TC006286.
**Tortorici, G., Pavano, F., Romagnoli, G., & Catalano, S. (2021). The effect of recent resurfacing in volcanic areas on the distribution of co-seismic ground deformation due to strike-slip earthquakes: New insights from the 12/26/2018 seismic event at Mt. Etna. Journal of Structural Geology, 145, 104308.
Paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 are secondary in the framework of the manuscript. There is a lot of work but the basic hypothesis is wrong or too weak in my opinion, and it would require much more data and analyses in a dedicated paper, not in this same paleoseismological study.
Conversely, I suggest to move in this part the materials related to the morphological profiles and related tables of the Fiandaca Fault, actually put in the electronic appendix. So the reader will easily find any information in the text.
8 Conclusions and future perspectives
Conclusions are repetitive. While it is obvious repeating the results of investigation, it would be also useful to comment critical issues and uncertainties of the paleoseismological investigation in a volcanc environment. This methodological approach is hard to apply here, but it has a significant potential to contribute for reconstructing the seismic history of a fault. Only basing on a significant dataset of paleoseismological data relevant to different faults (not yet existing), it will be possible to infer insights into geodynamic processes acting in the Etna region.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4078', Christoph von Hagke, 18 Jul 2025
Dear authors,
I have decided to review this article myself, as several reviewers had agreed to send in their report but eventually failed to meet the deadline. To progress, here my comments. See also additional comments in my role as editor.
This study shows paleoseismological evidnece from a major structure at the Etna volcano. Based on the investigation of trenches as well as morphotectonic evidence, the authors claim that there is an increase in flank instability. While the analysis of the trenches is sound and promising, interpretation of the results, in particular the proposed increase towards the present day is not necessarily supported by the data and needs to be discussed in more detail. While the article is mostly well-written, it requires modifications in structure and style. Last, the large numbers of abbreviations make it hard to read for people not familiar with the region. This article may become an interesting contribution, even in case the increase towards the present day cannot be established.
Specific comments
Line 13: Missing statement why this earthquake is important
Line 17: "strongly" - here and elsewhere: please avoid the use of such semi-quantitative terms that seem to push the reader into a certain direction.
Line 18: verify ==> test
Line 27: why focus on basaltic volcanoes here? Which limitations exist? delete "considerable"; "highly dynamic" is too vague. What do you mean?
Line 30: delete "significant"
Line 32: "Not much has been done" ==> colloquial. Please rephrase
Line 38: rates ==> rate; specify "over longer time windows"
Line 39 following - much of this has been said above
Line 40: specify "these geological processes"
Line 42: which methodologies do you refer to?
Line 43: "disentangling purely tectonic from volcanic-induced deformation" ==> this seems to be a stretch. What is the difference between these two and volcano-tectonic events? I don't think that you can disentangle these events, as they are closely linked, and chicken and egg is not clear. i.e., a volcanic event can cause a tectonic event, ad vice versa.
Line 47: "volcano behaviour" is too vague. please specify
Line 50: "verify" ==> test
Line 53: specify "significant effects"
Line 56: delete "careful" (should go without saying ;) )
Line 64: "entire volcano flakn dynamics". What does "entire" mean. Your study is smaller than that.
Line 70: sort abbreviations alphabetically
Line 79: split sentence in two
Line 79: 1-3 mm: based on what data?
Line 87: feed ==> fed
Line 98: andwith ==> and with
Line 101: 1865 CE, respectively
Line 113: "is interested" ==> change wording
Line 129: Regardless the TFS meaning ==> change wording
Line 131: as it is further ==> as further
Line 135 & 176: delete "significant"
Line 183: split sentence
Line 186: S ==> southern; does the termination rupture seismically and creep, or is it fully aseismic, as opposed to other parts of the fault?
Line 199: numbering incorrect
Line 201: delete "clear"
Line 211, 212: W-most ==> western most
Line 226: "coded" rephrase
Line 227: delete "meticulously"
Line 230: delete "deposit"
Line 235-236: sentnece can be deleted. In case you want to keep the reference, use a similar sentence as first sentence to this paragraph.
Line 243: rephrase
Section 4.3: should be one paragraph, references missing after "... published recently"
Line 298: 3 ==> three
Line 349: constraint ==> constrain
Line 355: what kind of "erosive event"? couldn't this be gradual? How much material has been removed?
Line 359: delte "some" and "generally"
Line 374: how much material has been eroded?
Line 384: W ==> west
Line 391: to ==> with
Line 393: period between
Fig. 12: add magnitudes
Line 401: delete "strongly"
Section 7.1: you have to describe more explicitly how you arrive at the throw rates. Consider moving table A1 to the main text, so it becomes more transparent what you do
Fig. 13: you show a power law trend. If you were to project this trend to today or even the near future, there would be an unrealistic amount of throw. This trend can be flawed by factors such as incomplete observations or strain distribution across multiple faults. Power law trends are always suspicious of bias, as we know from sedimentation or erosion rates. You have to discuss this more extensively.
Line 434: gradually ==> gradual
Line 446: what do you mean by "undergoing recent evolution and expansion"
Line 449: delete "significant"
Line 450: this growth of the edifice and it's rise to it's maximum size in the past 20 kyrs may cause reactions until today, but does not explain why a power law increase of throw rates should occur so recent. I think this is an over-interpretation of the data
Lines 468 following: move to conclusions
Line 475: specify "change in volcanic behaviour"
Line 488: "interested" rephrase
Line 490 following: split sentence
Line 493: grow == growth
Line 514: "if the observed trend will persist" ==> that's impossible. This power law trend would mean an incredible amount of throw already happening now (approximately 73 mm/yr).
Line 515: "consequences in the associated hazards" is too vague. please specify
Lines 545 -560: these three paragraphs are mostly speculative, vague, and unnecessarily conjure up crisis scenarios. Based on a re-evaluation of the trend they should be down-toned.
Christoph von Hagke
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4078-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
216 | 83 | 15 | 314 | 31 | 13 | 25 |
- HTML: 216
- PDF: 83
- XML: 15
- Total: 314
- Supplement: 31
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1