Tectonic Setting and Spatiotemporal Earthquake Distribution in Northern Nubia and Iberia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the spatio-temporal distribution of major earthquakes in the study area from 1600 to 2024, exploring links to ongoing tectonic processes. Seismic activity is primarily linked to the interaction between the western Nubian plate and the Iberian and Moroccan plates, affecting the North Atlantic domain, the Rif and Betic belts, the western Iberian fault system, and the Pyrenean thrust front. Activity in the Tell units is driven by Nubia-Eurasia convergence but may also reflect westward movements of the Anatolian-Aegean-Adriatic-Pelagian system, possibly explaining the increased seismicity in the Tell since the activation of the North Anatolian fault system in 1939. The manuscript provides a good summary and dataset of earthquake and try to link the tectonic setting. These findings help identify areas prone to major earthquakes in the future. Here are some concerns for your information.

 

FRAMEWORK OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The manuscript only has three sections, i.e., Introduction, Seismicity Distribution and Tectonic Processes, and Conclusions. Some sections are necessary, such as Geological setting, Data and Methods, Discussion, and etc.. Thus, I suggest to reorganize the manuscript.

 

TITLE

Please consider to change “Geodynamic/Tectonic Setting” to “Tectonic Setting”.

 

ABSTRACT

It is necessary to add one or two sentences to describe the dataset or analytical results.

 

MAIN TEXT

The authors summarize the tectonic history since the Early Oligocene (ca. 34 Ma) and the earthquake history since 1600, which represent significantly different timescales. How these two timelines are linked remains unclear to me after reading the main text. Could we clarify this connection?

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions drawn here are too lengthy. Please just describe the most importing, solid, and convincing findings here. Usually, one or two paragraphs are OK.

 

FIGURES

Fig.1: This figure is not clear enough. Please try to change the faults to red. In addition, the numbers of latitude and longitude are large. The red circles overlaps, so try to use another color for the M=7 and 8?

Please use the words for the legend instead of numbers. The present form really hard to read.

Fig.2: Please use the words for the legend instead of numbers.

Fig.4: What are the blue arrow heads?

Fig.5: use a tectonic sketch as a base map? what is the source of these seismic data?

If possible, it would be better to add a figure or cartoon to show the connection between earthquake and tectonic process.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article by Mantovani et al. studies the overall spatio-temporal distribution of seismicity and geodynamic evolution of the Nubian and surrounding plates. Their approach is relatively simple and unique to decipher the seismic hazard of this region by proposing a few hypotheses. The article is well-written and properly organized. However, I have a major concern about the way the authors are focusing on addressing the question of where the next major earthquake may happen in this region, which they are not answering. Instead, the present study just analyzes the spatial distribution of seismicity and tries to predict whether the region may or may not expect a big one in the near future. How come you pinpoint the location of the next major earthquake by just analyzing the spatial distribution of seismicity?  I would suggest the authors reword their argument for the sake of clarity. Besides this, I found the manuscript good enough for publication after a few minor changes.

 

Comments:

 

May add a paragraph in the introduction section describing the seismic scenario of the study region, particularly focusing on the evidence of large earthquakes. This will help in setting up the research question of why seismic hazard estimation is an urgent need in this region.

 

Figure-1: Represent seismicity as filled circles and reduce the scaling factor a bit for better representation. The same goes for other figures too. Denote the longitude in East and West.

 

Line 53: Open bracket

 

Line 76: Migrating?

 

Figure-5: What do the numbers represent? Earthquake depth?

 

Line 281-282: How come to define the location of the next major earthquake just by analyzing the spatial distribution of seismicity? I would suggest the authors reword their argument for the sake of clarity.

 

For convenience, please check the manuscript again for any typos and grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

     This manuscript makes an adequate tectonic analysis of the area under study. It also presents the seismicity well. But it does not make new contributions in this matters. And the division in seismic periods since 1600 is poorly funded. For these reasons, the manuscript should probably not be accepted. 

      But there is an aspect, that although strictly speaking it is not really new, is interesting. It is the relationship between tectonic deformations and the triggering of earthquakes in the different geological domains under discussion. Although this relationships will not allow us to indicate where new earthquakes will occur, since there are many factors on which they depend, it is interesting because it clearly shows this regional connection.

     Therefore, although I have hesitated between accepting or rejecting the manuscript, I recommended its acceptance, unless the Editor things otherwise. 

    If the manuscript is accepted, there are few formal corrections to be made (they are indicated in the notes added to the manuscript). But it would be good if the division into seismic period were reconsidered. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I uploaded my review as a separate file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I checked the revisional version, and find that authors have adressed all my concerns and did seriously revisions. 

pls carefully check the writting and figures. For example, all Figures need to add scale bars.

I suggest to accept this paper for publication after very minor revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx