the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Jan 2025
Seismo-tectonics of Greater Iberia: An updated review
Abstract. From the analysis of 542 moment tensor focal mechanisms in Iberia, active tectonic deformations and stresses were inferred by implementing different and complementary methodologies: FMC classification of the rupture type; composed focal mechanism based on the average seismic moment tensor; rotation angle between tensors estimates; Right Dihedra composed focal mechanisms; Slip Model analysis to determine the strain conditions and classical stress inversion methodology. By using the Slip Model results and considering the tectonic constraints of the Cenozoic deformation in Iberia, the study region was subdivided into a series of zones where the different methods were individually applied. The results indicate that thrust faulting stress regimes are active in the Gorringe-Horseshoe area and the easternmost Tell Atlas. In the south, most of the zones are transpressive, as well as in the southwestern corner of Iberia, south of Lisbon. The exception is the Granada Basin, which displays an almost radial normal faulting stress regime. Normal faulting stresses are dominant in the Pyrenees and in the Mediterranean rim, north of the Betics. In the central part of the Pyrenees, we find a maximum horizontal extension perpendicular to the range, indicating that local stresses related to post-orogenic collapse or isostatic rebound dominate over regional ones. The maximum horizontal compression along the Eurasia-Africa plate limit is very homogeneously close to N154° E, except in some parts of the Betics that are probably influenced by a remanent effect of the Alboran Slab. In the Central Ranges and offshore Atlantic, the maximum horizontal compression is slightly rotated anticlockwise to N140° E.
-
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
(10990 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(10990 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4126', A. M. Casas, 30 Jan 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Antonio Olaiz, 03 Feb 2025
Dear Dr. Casas,
Thank you for your comments. We are enhancing the geographical information to make it easier for readers to follow the manuscript. We also appreciate your efforts in identifying grammatical and typographical errors, as well as issues with subscripts. These will be reviewed before the final submission
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4126-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Antonio Olaiz, 03 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4126', Klaus Reicherter, 25 Mar 2025
The manuscript "Seismo-tectonics of Greater Iberia: An updated review" provides a comprehensive analysis of the seismo-tectonic characteristics and stress regimes in the Iberian Peninsula, based on an extensive compilation of 542 moment tensor focal mechanisms. The study employs various methodologies, including focal mechanism classification, stress inversion techniques, and Slip Model analyses to assess contemporary tectonic deformations and stress distributions. In conclusion, this updated review enhances knowledge about seismo-tectonics in Iberia by providing detailed insights into active stress regimes and their implications for seismic risk assessment in this geologically complex region.
This is an up to date seismic contribution to stress distribution in the Iberian peninsula and worth to be published.
I have annotated the manuscript by pen, hopefully the author can decipher my hand writing. Of course, there are some flaws, typos and use of "poor" english. Interestingly the quality varies during the manuscript, seems like different chapter have been writing by individual authors, and nor "stream-lining" has been carried out. This is a pity! As the quality of data and illustrations are excellent and clear.
Some more general comments:
"Greater Iberia" - is not existing. It´s short Iberia or Iberian Peninsula. Avoid that term. Iberia has 4 nations since more than 300 years, and nobody refers to Spain as "Smaller Iberia".
Rock units are upper and lower, time (ages) is Early and Late. Correct this throughout the ms.
The introduction and objective chapter (1) needs to be re-written in terms of plate tectonics the review and status are sometimes not correct. Partly Iberia is considered as an individual plate (line 38), sometimes African Plate is Nubian Plate and v.v. It should be consistent. If I wrote "ref" a reference is missing. The introduction needs a clear separation of plate tectonics and stresses induced by different sources.
Line 39: compression in Iberia started as early as Late Cretaceous (there is an old paper by - sorry by myself- Reicherter and Pletsch, 2000, Terra Nova, already discussing this)
Line 61: seismic institutions? Better Seismic Obsersatories or Geophysical Institutes...
Line 69: SHmax should be written consistently in the ms.
Fig.1. Some structures are missing, Gafarillos Fault? Palomares Fault is cutting the Carboneras (better: the Carboneras Fault is ending at the Palomares). Why difference between Post-Orogenic and Late Miocene extension? It is basically in the Betics identical?
Line 99: 30 km focal depth means in the oceanic realm --> it is in the mantle lithosphere?
Line 116: please sort like the discription before...
Figure 3: what about the gaps, in Mallorca or central Spain.
4 Tectonic zonation chapter: this can be organized better, some descriptions are missing
Table 4 and 5: descriptions are varying? Why?
Line 394: In 5.5 El Camp Fault was already mentioned in 5.3? Reduce redudancy.
Line 420: sentence incomplete
Line 484 and others: N070°E-N090°E is rather bulky, why not N070-090°E much simpler and easy, and please consistent throughout the manuscript.
Line 499: I find the SVT here a bit displaced in your listing? It does not fit here.
Line 589: confusion 5.14 was already called WAA? Should be Granada Basin?
Chapter 5.15: I was wondering if the authors ignore geological work done? My own (sorry again, but this was the reason I reviewed the ms) work from 2005 (Reicherter and Peters Tectonophysics) already describes radial extension and a recent stress field including active faults. What about the Arenas de Rey earthquake 1884? This paragraph can be improved significantly. The intrabasinal deformation is compared with the margins of the GB different. Also the Jabaloy et al paper has not been considered. I know the paper are "old" but according to your new data, they already mentioned several facts.
Line 739: remnant effect of the slab? This should be expleaind better and reference is missing? Is this really mechanically possible? Why 20 km depth? The earthquakes there (Malaga region) are usually much deeper? Is there mid-crustal detachment?
Line 832: "As it can been seen in Fig....." this is really poor English, and degrades the quality of the manuscript. This refers to the entire chapter 7 Discussion, please consider a re-writing, as the quality does not meet international standards.
Line 966 It should be chapter 8 Conclusions, not 7...
Fig. 15 - this is not an Alpine tectonic map of Iberia.... It is a map of recent stress in Iberia, please change text (Line 945) accordingly.
I didn´t check the references for completeness, this is editors work. Supplementary maps are very nice, but directly outline the problems: where there is no earthquake .... and especially for the GB I have major doubts, as marginal faults do not appear as seismically active.
I hope this review helps improving the manuscript, if you cannot decipher my hand-writing in the ms, let me know. Good luck.
Aachen, 25/3/2025 Prof. Klaus Reicherter
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Antonio Olaiz, 28 Apr 2025
Dear Dr. Reicherter,
We greatly appreciate your valuable review and your kind words. Your suggestions have improved significantly the quality of the original manuscript. We have implemented your comments in the original document.
Please, find in the attached document our responses written in red
Best regards,
Antonio Olaiz
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Antonio Olaiz, 28 Apr 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4126', Anonymous Referee #3, 06 Apr 2025
The manuscript by Olaiz et al. offers valuable insights into the seismotectonics of greater Iberia. The authors have compiled and analysed over 500 focal mechanism solutions to enhance the understanding of the region's active tectonics. While there are some typos and inconsistencies in acronym usage (e.g., SHmax) and figure references (e.g., "Fig." vs. "Figure"), these are minor issues likely to be addressed during the production stage. Overall, the manuscript is well-organized but would benefit from an additional round of English editing. Therefore, I recommend publication pending minor revision.
Some general comments
- A clearer explanation of the database would be helpful, particularly regarding how the authors identified and handled duplicate entries. While the highest %DC is mentioned, additional detail on the process would improve clarity.
- I feel the depth parameter was not thoroughly discussed across the different sections. For example, were there any observed changes in stress regime with depth? Also, I wasn't sure how depth was accounted for in Figure 3; was the map created using focal mechanism data? If so, how did you generate a map considering that focal mechanisms come from varying depths?
- A clearer explanation on your ‘re-evaluation’ for other stress data (inferred from WSM) would be great. Also, I think WSM has lots of stress inferred from focal mechanics solutions for this region. So, how did you deal with it as you also have a new comprehensive database of FMS.
- A supplement (or appendix) consisting of the details of 542 focal mechanics solutions would be great.
Detailed comments
- Line 90: use Geofon (GFZ-Potsdam) instead of GFZ-Potsdam.
- Line 99: Maybe show the Moho depth of the study area as a map?
- Line 113: It needs a sentence or two to explain what the Reches (1992) methos is known for and why did you prefer this method?
- Line 115: thrust or thrusting?
- Line 115-117: What about stress orientation?
- Why both 3.1 (line 118) and 3.2 (185) have the same title (i.e., kinematic analysis)?
- Line 185 to 190 needs at least reference as you are providing some info from the literature.
- Figure 3: What particular depth this map has been prepared for?
- Line 763: change ‘inver-sions’ with ‘inversions’.
- Figure 9: I see lots of SHmax orientations inferred from FMSs on this map. It would be great to clarify if there are new FMSs (based on your database) or if they were in the WSM database?
- Figure 15: it would be great to add a background (e.g., topography) and some names on the map for those who are not familiar with the area.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4126-RC3 - AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Antonio Olaiz, 29 Apr 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4126', A. M. Casas, 30 Jan 2025
The paper by Olaiz et al presents a recopilation of a large quantityt of data, that will contribute to the understanding of the recent or rather present-day tectonics of Iberia (whether greater or not, I think that the term greater could be kept for the sector limited by the ancient plate boundaries, let's say the mid-Atlantic ridge on one side an Sicily-Calabria on the other). The selection of data is good and therefore I think that the discussion and conclusions presented are well founded on these data. The presentation is of very good quality, and all in all the paper will contribute to the knowledge of this particular sector, sometimes with controversial interpretations, of the European-African plate boundary. My only remarks are related to formal issues. These include the use of toponyms that are of common knowledge for the researchers who work in the Iberian plate, but not for the rest. I do not know in which way they could be made undestandable (and localized for the whole scientific community. Maybe a table with the location of the different features referred to in the text or their location in the map. Another possibility is to reduce the number of geographical/geological names but this is not so good a solution, in my opinion. Other minor issues are related to the use of Tertiary for Cenozoic of some gramatical or typographic errors (suggests in line 165, Gorring instead of Gorringe, etc...). I also suggest the authors to revise carefully the use of subscripts because sometimes the names of the stress axes and other variables are difficult to distinguish within the text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4126-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Antonio Olaiz, 03 Feb 2025
Dear Dr. Casas,
Thank you for your comments. We are enhancing the geographical information to make it easier for readers to follow the manuscript. We also appreciate your efforts in identifying grammatical and typographical errors, as well as issues with subscripts. These will be reviewed before the final submission
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4126-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Antonio Olaiz, 03 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4126', Klaus Reicherter, 25 Mar 2025
The manuscript "Seismo-tectonics of Greater Iberia: An updated review" provides a comprehensive analysis of the seismo-tectonic characteristics and stress regimes in the Iberian Peninsula, based on an extensive compilation of 542 moment tensor focal mechanisms. The study employs various methodologies, including focal mechanism classification, stress inversion techniques, and Slip Model analyses to assess contemporary tectonic deformations and stress distributions. In conclusion, this updated review enhances knowledge about seismo-tectonics in Iberia by providing detailed insights into active stress regimes and their implications for seismic risk assessment in this geologically complex region.
This is an up to date seismic contribution to stress distribution in the Iberian peninsula and worth to be published.
I have annotated the manuscript by pen, hopefully the author can decipher my hand writing. Of course, there are some flaws, typos and use of "poor" english. Interestingly the quality varies during the manuscript, seems like different chapter have been writing by individual authors, and nor "stream-lining" has been carried out. This is a pity! As the quality of data and illustrations are excellent and clear.
Some more general comments:
"Greater Iberia" - is not existing. It´s short Iberia or Iberian Peninsula. Avoid that term. Iberia has 4 nations since more than 300 years, and nobody refers to Spain as "Smaller Iberia".
Rock units are upper and lower, time (ages) is Early and Late. Correct this throughout the ms.
The introduction and objective chapter (1) needs to be re-written in terms of plate tectonics the review and status are sometimes not correct. Partly Iberia is considered as an individual plate (line 38), sometimes African Plate is Nubian Plate and v.v. It should be consistent. If I wrote "ref" a reference is missing. The introduction needs a clear separation of plate tectonics and stresses induced by different sources.
Line 39: compression in Iberia started as early as Late Cretaceous (there is an old paper by - sorry by myself- Reicherter and Pletsch, 2000, Terra Nova, already discussing this)
Line 61: seismic institutions? Better Seismic Obsersatories or Geophysical Institutes...
Line 69: SHmax should be written consistently in the ms.
Fig.1. Some structures are missing, Gafarillos Fault? Palomares Fault is cutting the Carboneras (better: the Carboneras Fault is ending at the Palomares). Why difference between Post-Orogenic and Late Miocene extension? It is basically in the Betics identical?
Line 99: 30 km focal depth means in the oceanic realm --> it is in the mantle lithosphere?
Line 116: please sort like the discription before...
Figure 3: what about the gaps, in Mallorca or central Spain.
4 Tectonic zonation chapter: this can be organized better, some descriptions are missing
Table 4 and 5: descriptions are varying? Why?
Line 394: In 5.5 El Camp Fault was already mentioned in 5.3? Reduce redudancy.
Line 420: sentence incomplete
Line 484 and others: N070°E-N090°E is rather bulky, why not N070-090°E much simpler and easy, and please consistent throughout the manuscript.
Line 499: I find the SVT here a bit displaced in your listing? It does not fit here.
Line 589: confusion 5.14 was already called WAA? Should be Granada Basin?
Chapter 5.15: I was wondering if the authors ignore geological work done? My own (sorry again, but this was the reason I reviewed the ms) work from 2005 (Reicherter and Peters Tectonophysics) already describes radial extension and a recent stress field including active faults. What about the Arenas de Rey earthquake 1884? This paragraph can be improved significantly. The intrabasinal deformation is compared with the margins of the GB different. Also the Jabaloy et al paper has not been considered. I know the paper are "old" but according to your new data, they already mentioned several facts.
Line 739: remnant effect of the slab? This should be expleaind better and reference is missing? Is this really mechanically possible? Why 20 km depth? The earthquakes there (Malaga region) are usually much deeper? Is there mid-crustal detachment?
Line 832: "As it can been seen in Fig....." this is really poor English, and degrades the quality of the manuscript. This refers to the entire chapter 7 Discussion, please consider a re-writing, as the quality does not meet international standards.
Line 966 It should be chapter 8 Conclusions, not 7...
Fig. 15 - this is not an Alpine tectonic map of Iberia.... It is a map of recent stress in Iberia, please change text (Line 945) accordingly.
I didn´t check the references for completeness, this is editors work. Supplementary maps are very nice, but directly outline the problems: where there is no earthquake .... and especially for the GB I have major doubts, as marginal faults do not appear as seismically active.
I hope this review helps improving the manuscript, if you cannot decipher my hand-writing in the ms, let me know. Good luck.
Aachen, 25/3/2025 Prof. Klaus Reicherter
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Antonio Olaiz, 28 Apr 2025
Dear Dr. Reicherter,
We greatly appreciate your valuable review and your kind words. Your suggestions have improved significantly the quality of the original manuscript. We have implemented your comments in the original document.
Please, find in the attached document our responses written in red
Best regards,
Antonio Olaiz
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Antonio Olaiz, 28 Apr 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4126', Anonymous Referee #3, 06 Apr 2025
The manuscript by Olaiz et al. offers valuable insights into the seismotectonics of greater Iberia. The authors have compiled and analysed over 500 focal mechanism solutions to enhance the understanding of the region's active tectonics. While there are some typos and inconsistencies in acronym usage (e.g., SHmax) and figure references (e.g., "Fig." vs. "Figure"), these are minor issues likely to be addressed during the production stage. Overall, the manuscript is well-organized but would benefit from an additional round of English editing. Therefore, I recommend publication pending minor revision.
Some general comments
- A clearer explanation of the database would be helpful, particularly regarding how the authors identified and handled duplicate entries. While the highest %DC is mentioned, additional detail on the process would improve clarity.
- I feel the depth parameter was not thoroughly discussed across the different sections. For example, were there any observed changes in stress regime with depth? Also, I wasn't sure how depth was accounted for in Figure 3; was the map created using focal mechanism data? If so, how did you generate a map considering that focal mechanisms come from varying depths?
- A clearer explanation on your ‘re-evaluation’ for other stress data (inferred from WSM) would be great. Also, I think WSM has lots of stress inferred from focal mechanics solutions for this region. So, how did you deal with it as you also have a new comprehensive database of FMS.
- A supplement (or appendix) consisting of the details of 542 focal mechanics solutions would be great.
Detailed comments
- Line 90: use Geofon (GFZ-Potsdam) instead of GFZ-Potsdam.
- Line 99: Maybe show the Moho depth of the study area as a map?
- Line 113: It needs a sentence or two to explain what the Reches (1992) methos is known for and why did you prefer this method?
- Line 115: thrust or thrusting?
- Line 115-117: What about stress orientation?
- Why both 3.1 (line 118) and 3.2 (185) have the same title (i.e., kinematic analysis)?
- Line 185 to 190 needs at least reference as you are providing some info from the literature.
- Figure 3: What particular depth this map has been prepared for?
- Line 763: change ‘inver-sions’ with ‘inversions’.
- Figure 9: I see lots of SHmax orientations inferred from FMSs on this map. It would be great to clarify if there are new FMSs (based on your database) or if they were in the WSM database?
- Figure 15: it would be great to add a background (e.g., topography) and some names on the map for those who are not familiar with the area.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4126-RC3 - AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Antonio Olaiz, 29 Apr 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 929 | 150 | 28 | 1,107 | 36 | 50 |
- HTML: 929
- PDF: 150
- XML: 28
- Total: 1,107
- BibTeX: 36
- EndNote: 50
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Antonio J. Olaiz
José A. Álvarez Gómez
Gerardo de Vicente
Alfonso Muñoz-Martín
Juan V. Cantavella
Susana Custódio
Dina Vales
Oliver Heidbach
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(10990 KB) - Metadata XML
The paper by Olaiz et al presents a recopilation of a large quantityt of data, that will contribute to the understanding of the recent or rather present-day tectonics of Iberia (whether greater or not, I think that the term greater could be kept for the sector limited by the ancient plate boundaries, let's say the mid-Atlantic ridge on one side an Sicily-Calabria on the other). The selection of data is good and therefore I think that the discussion and conclusions presented are well founded on these data. The presentation is of very good quality, and all in all the paper will contribute to the knowledge of this particular sector, sometimes with controversial interpretations, of the European-African plate boundary. My only remarks are related to formal issues. These include the use of toponyms that are of common knowledge for the researchers who work in the Iberian plate, but not for the rest. I do not know in which way they could be made undestandable (and localized for the whole scientific community. Maybe a table with the location of the different features referred to in the text or their location in the map. Another possibility is to reduce the number of geographical/geological names but this is not so good a solution, in my opinion. Other minor issues are related to the use of Tertiary for Cenozoic of some gramatical or typographic errors (suggests in line 165, Gorring instead of Gorringe, etc...). I also suggest the authors to revise carefully the use of subscripts because sometimes the names of the stress axes and other variables are difficult to distinguish within the text.