Next Article in Journal
Data Structures for 2D Representation of Terrain Models
Previous Article in Journal
The Structure of the Biosphere from the Point of View of the Concept of the Biogeome
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Encyclopedia
Volume 5
Issue 3
10.3390/encyclopedia5030097
encyclopedia-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Entry

Geodynamics of the Mediterranean Region: Primary Role of Extrusion Processes

by
Enzo Mantovani
,
Marcello Viti
*,
Caterina Tamburelli
and
Daniele Babbucci
Department of Physical Sciences, Earth and Environment, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Encyclopedia 2025, 5(3), 97; https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030097
Submission received: 15 April 2025 / Revised: 20 June 2025 / Accepted: 3 July 2025 / Published: 7 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Earth Sciences)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Definition

Tectonic activity in the Mediterranean region has been driven by the convergence of the confining plates (Nubia, Arabia and Eurasia). This convergence has been accommodated by the consumption of the oceanic domains that were present in the late Oligocene. It is suggested that this process has been enabled by the lateral escape of orogenic belts in response to constrictional contexts. Where this condition was not present, subduction did not occur. This interpretation can plausibly and coherently account for the very complex pattern of tectonic processes in the whole area since the early Miocene. It is also suggested, by providing some examples, that the geodynamic context proposed here might help us to recognize the connection between the ongoing tectonic processes and the spatio-temporal distribution of past major earthquakes. A discussion is then reported about the incompatibilities of the main alternative geodynamic interpretation (slab pull) with the observed deformation pattern.

1. Introduction

The present configuration of the Mediterranean region is considerably different from the Oligocene context reconstructed by geologists (Figure 1, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]). Most of the orogenic belts existing in the late Oligocene (Alpine–Iberian and Pelagonian–Aegean–Anatolian Tethyan belts) have undergone long migrations and strong deformations. A large part of the original oceanic domains (Alpine Tethys) has been consumed, leaving some remnants in the Ionian and Levantine domains. Large extensional zones developed, such as the Balearic, the Tyrrhenian, the Aegean and the Pannonian basins. New orogenic belts have been generated along the fronts of the migrating Alpine–Iberian (Western Mediterranean) and Tethyan (Eastern Mediterranean) belts. The tectonic mechanism that generated such systems is generally recognized as a trench-arc-back arc process, characterized by the migration of orogenic belts, with the development of accretionary activity along the fronts of the arcs and the formation of basins inside the arcs (e.g., [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]).
The first systems created by this mechanism were the Balearic and the Carpatho-Pannonian ones during the late Oligocene and upper Miocene (Figure 2). The Balearic involved a long migration and a strong bending of the Iberian–Alpine belt that was originally located along the western European margin (Figure 2A), The detachment of this belt from the European foreland also involved a major continental fragment (Corsica–Sardinia block). The accretionary activity that developed along the front of the migrating arc (due to the consumption of the Tethys oceanic domain) formed the Apennine belt along the S-N branch of the Alpine belt and the Maghrebian belt along the E-W branch of that arc. The extension that occurred in the wake of the migrating arcs generated the Balearic basin. The migration of the N-S arc ceased around the middle–upper Miocene, when it collided with the Adriatic continental domain (Figure 2B). The E-W arc ended its migration against the Nubian continental domain in the upper Miocene (Figure 2C), determining the end of extension in the Balearic basin.
Encyclopedia 05 00097 g001
Figure 1. (A) Presumed configuration of the Mediterranean region in the Oligocene. (1) Continental (a) and thinned continental (b) Eurasian domains. (2) Continental (a) and thinned continental (b) Nubian–Adriatic domains. (3) Tethyan orogenic belt constituted by ophiolitic units (a) and metamorphic massifs (b). (4) Intracontinental Alpine orogenic belt. (5) Other orogenic belts. (6) Tethyan oceanic domains. (7) Zones affected by intense (a) or moderate (b) crustal thinning. (8,9,10) Compressional, extensional and strike–slip tectonic features. (11) External fronts of the belts. Present coastlines are reported for reference. Al = Alcapa block, RGS = Rhine Graben System, TD = Tisza-Dacia block. (B) Present configuration. BP = Balearic Promontory, Ca = Campidano graben, CS = Corsica–Sardinia block, EAF = Eastern Anatolian fault, ECA = External Calabrian arc, ECB = Eastern Cretan basin, NAF = North Anatolian fault, SV = Schio–Vicenza fault, Sy = Syracuse fault, TFS = Transmoroccan fault system, VHM = Victor Hensen–Medina fault system, WCB = Western Cretan basin. Blue arrows indicate the present kinematic pattern (e.g., [20,21,22]). Nubia’s motion trend is taken from [23,24].
Figure 1. (A) Presumed configuration of the Mediterranean region in the Oligocene. (1) Continental (a) and thinned continental (b) Eurasian domains. (2) Continental (a) and thinned continental (b) Nubian–Adriatic domains. (3) Tethyan orogenic belt constituted by ophiolitic units (a) and metamorphic massifs (b). (4) Intracontinental Alpine orogenic belt. (5) Other orogenic belts. (6) Tethyan oceanic domains. (7) Zones affected by intense (a) or moderate (b) crustal thinning. (8,9,10) Compressional, extensional and strike–slip tectonic features. (11) External fronts of the belts. Present coastlines are reported for reference. Al = Alcapa block, RGS = Rhine Graben System, TD = Tisza-Dacia block. (B) Present configuration. BP = Balearic Promontory, Ca = Campidano graben, CS = Corsica–Sardinia block, EAF = Eastern Anatolian fault, ECA = External Calabrian arc, ECB = Eastern Cretan basin, NAF = North Anatolian fault, SV = Schio–Vicenza fault, Sy = Syracuse fault, TFS = Transmoroccan fault system, VHM = Victor Hensen–Medina fault system, WCB = Western Cretan basin. Blue arrows indicate the present kinematic pattern (e.g., [20,21,22]). Nubia’s motion trend is taken from [23,24].
Encyclopedia 05 00097 g001
The other almost coeval trench-arc-back arc system developed on the other side of the Adriatic promontory, creating the Carpatho-Balkan–Pannonian complex.
In that case, the extension that determined the formation of the Pannonian basin developed in the wake of two major sectors of the Tethyan belt (Alcapa and Tisza–Dacia blocks), whose opposite rotations determined the consumption of the Magura oceanic domain. During this phase, the Anatolian–Aegean system, stressed by the indentation of the Arabian promontory, underwent a westward displacement and a strong deformation, which led to the formation of the Hellenic arc and the Aegean basins.
Around the late Miocene, the tectonic setting in the whole Mediterranean region underwent a major change, involving the formation of the Tyrrhenian basins [25,26,27], the strong deformation of the Apennine belt [28,29,30], the SE ward migration of the Calabrian arc [4,31,32], the formation of a long discontinuity crossing the Ionian domain (Victor Hensen–Medina fault [33,34] and the Pelagian foreland (Sicily Channel fault system [35,36], the northward displacement of the Maghrebian belt lying north of the Pelagian zone [37,38,39], the formation of the Campidano trough in Sardinia (Pliocene, [40,41]) and even the deformation of the northern Nubian belts (Tell and Atlas) in the Plio-Quaternary [42,43]. Since the upper Miocene, the Adriatic domain was affected by the formation of three major discontinuities. One, about 9 My ago, involved the reactivation of the Giudicarie fault system in the northwestern sector of the promontory, as a sinistral transpressional fault [44,45]. Another, at about 6 My ago, formed a long discontinuity crossing the Ionian domain (Victor Hensen–Medina fault) and the Pelagian foreland (Sicily Channel fault system). The last fracture developed around the late Miocene (6 My), by the reactivation of an old weak zone as an NNW dextral transpressional fault (Schio–Vicenza), in the northeastern Adriatic domain [46,47].
In the Quaternary, after the complete consumption of the peri-Adriatic oceanic domains, this plate (stressed by Nubia) has undergone a minor N to NNE motion, inducing belt parallel shortening in the Apennine belt and thrustings in the Eastern Alps. This regime, still going on, has been accommodated by the formation of arcs (southern and northern Apennines) and of transversal WSW-ENE thrust zones (e.g., Ancona–Anzio and Sangro–-Volturno, [48,49]) in the Apennine belt.
During the above evolution, the distance between Eurasia and Nubia has been significantly reduced, indicating a roughly NNE-ward plate convergence (e.g., [19] and references therein, [23]).

2. Proposed Geodynamic Interpretation

2.1. Main Concepts

It is suggested that since the Oligocene the tectonic evolution of the Mediterranean region has been strongly conditioned by extrusion processes. This hypothesis is supported by the implications of some major pieces of evidence.
One is the fact that, during the indentation of the Adriatic promontory into Eurasia, the old oceanic Ionian domain did not undergo any subduction beneath the confining continental plates. This testifies that, in a direct continent–ocean collision, the breaking of the oceanic lithosphere (required to trigger the sinking) is prevented, even if this domain is stressed by strong compression (e.g., [50]). This behavior can be explained by considering that the horizontal strength of an old oceanic domain is comparable or greater than the one of a continental plate (e.g., [51,52,53]).
The fact that since the early Miocene a large part of the oceanic domains was consumed suggests that in certain conditions the difficulty cited above can be overcome, making the subduction of the denser plate feasible. To understand what these conditions may be, one should consider that since the Miocene the subduction of oceanic domains always developed under migrating orogenic belts. Such a systematic behavior suggests that what favors the subduction of the denser plate in a collision zone may be the fact that this domain is loaded by the buoyant material involved in an escaping process. This mechanism causes the downward flexure and then the breaking of the loaded lithosphere, triggering its sinking into the mantle (see, e.g., the quantitative analysis by [54]).
The above evidence and the related considerations suggest some basic concepts:
-
In the Mediterranean area, the convergence of the confining plates (Nubia, Arabia and Eurasia) was accommodated by the consumption of the oceanic domains which originally lay in that zone.
-
These processes only occurred where the sinking of the oceanic lithosphere was triggered by extrusion mechanisms.
-
The configuration of the plate mosaic and the related kinematic pattern during each tectonic phase was conditioned, through the activation of major discontinuities, by the need to create strong compression on the buoyant structures that were lying close to oceanic domains (so favoring extrusion processes).
A geodynamic interpretation based on the above concepts makes it possible to plausibly explain the very complex distribution of tectonic processes that determined the evolution of the Mediterranean region (e.g., [19]).
The main implication of the geodynamic interpretation proposed here is that all the tectonic processes that determined the evolution of the Mediterranean region can be explained as effects of the relative motions of the major plates, as provided by the plate tectonics theory, without the need to invoke additional mantle forces, such as the one involved by the slab-pull model. The tectonic event that has induced some authors to adopt this interpretation is the development of large extensional structures in a zone stressed by the convergence of the confining plates (Nubia, Arabia and Eurasia). To explain this apparently peculiar feature, the slab-pull model tentatively assumes that such extensional episodes are driven by the gravitational sinking of the underlying slab [55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]). However, the tectonic implications of this driving force cannot be reconciled with several features of the observed deformation pattern. The main difficulties are pointed out in the Discussion, in some papers (e.g., [63,64,65,66,67,68,69]), and in a book ([19] and references therein).

2.2. Evolutionary Reconstruction

The formation of the Balearic trench-arc-back arc system was triggered by the collision of western Nubia with the Alpine–Iberian belt around the late Oligocene (Figure 2A). Then, the shortening required by the Nubia–Eurasia plate convergence was accommodated by the eastward escape of wedges from the stressed belt. The fact that the central escaping wedges moved faster than the peripheral wedges resulted in a sort of bending of the belt, until it assumed a configuration characterized by two almost perpendicular belt segments (Figure 2B,C). The migration of that belt developed at the expense of the Alpine Tethys oceanic domain, leading to the formation of the Apennine and Tellian Maghrebide accretionary belts along the front of the migrating arc and to the opening of the Balearic basin in the wake of the arc.
The eastward migration of the N-S belt segment (the Iberian–Apennine belt, accompanied by the Corsica–Sardinia European fragment) ended around the middle–late Miocene, when this arc collided with the continental Adriatic domain. The E-W sector of the arc (the Alpine–Maghrebides belt) ceased to migrate around the late Miocene when it collided with the continental Nubian domain. The above events determined the end of extension in the Balearic basin (Figure 2C).
During the same time interval, another trench-arc-back arc system developed in the northeastern Mediterranean region, due to the migration and bending of the Pelagonian sector of the Tethyan belt, in response to the indentation of the Arabian promontory [70,71,72,73]. The belt-parallel shortening of this belt involved the opposite rotations of the Alcapa and Tisza Tethyan belt sectors, determining the formation of the Carpatho-Balkan arc and the opening of the Pannonian basin, in the wake of these migrating blocks [67,74,75].
During this phase, the Adriatic promontory accumulated a counterclockwise torsion, due to the NE ward motion of Nubia and to the fact that the northwestern edge of that promontory was stuck into the Western Alps. This mechanism induced a sinistral shear stress in the northwestern part of the promontory, which led to the reactivation, around the upper Miocene, of an old discontinuity (the Giudicarie fault system). This decoupling enabled the northern part of the promontory to move NE-ward, so releasing the previous torsion. This hypothesis is compatible with the change of the deformation pattern that occurred in the Central and Eastern Alps [44,45]. The consequent angular divergence between the Adriatic promontory and the Corsica–Sardinia block caused the formation of the northern Tyrrhenian basin ([19] and references therein, [76,77,78]).
Until the late Miocene, the tectonic evolutions of the Western and Eastern Mediterranean regions developed in almost independent ways, driven by the SW-NE Nubia–Eurasia convergence in the west and by the indentation of Arabia along with the Nubia–Eurasia convergence in the east. The tectonic setting in the whole Mediterranean region underwent a drastic reorganization around the late Miocene–early Pliocene, in response to the collision of the Aegean–Balkan Tethyan system with the continental Adriatic domain.
The subsequent evolution was determined by the need to consume the remaining oceanic domains (Alpine Tethys), with the help of the lateral escape of buoyant wedges. This result was achieved by a complex reorganization of the tectonic context in the central and even the Western Mediterranean area. This change started with the decoupling of a large part of the Adriatic promontory (the Adria plate) from Nubia (Figure 2D). This decoupling was enabled by the formation of a long discontinuity, crossing the Ionian domain (Victor Hensen–Medina fault) and the Pelagian domain (Sicily Channel fault system). Once decoupled, the Adria plate underwent a clockwise rotation, which induced a very strong E-W compression in the Pelagian zone, triggering the series of tectonic processes that favored the consumption of the oceanic remnants which lay west of Adria [68,79]. This complex process started with the northward escape of the Adventure wedge (Figure 2B,C). In turn this indentation caused the northward displacement of the Maghrebian sector lying north of it and then the E- to SE-ward escape of wedges (Southern Apennines and Calabria) at the expense of the remaining Alpine Tethys domain. The extension that developed in the wake of the Southern Apennines and Calabrian wedges led to the formation of the central (Vavilov) and southern (Marsili) Tyrrhenian basins. Another very important imprint of the northward push of the Adventure–Magrebides wedge was the occurrence of tectonic activity in the Corsica–Sardinia block, which led to the formation of the Campidano trough [40,41,80,81].
In the eastern Mediterranean, the collision of the Anatolian–Aegean system with the Adria plate was followed by a complex pattern of tectonic processes. The southward to SW-ward bending of the Aegean arc accelerated. The increase in curvature did not cause major fractures in the inner metamorphic core, due to its mainly ductile nature. Conversely, the outer orogenic part of that arc, being mainly characterized by a brittle nature, underwent major fractures. The most evident was the angular separation of the Crete–Rhodes sector from the Cyclades and the Peloponnesus, with the formation of the western Cretan basin [82,83,84,85,86]. The combined effects of the southward displacement of the Aegean arc and the westward push of Anatolia formed a system of sinistral strike–slip faults in the northern Aegean zone. The E-W compressional regime that affected the Peloponnesus arc caused the southward to SW-ward escape of that wedge, which in turn induced a S-N extension in the northern Greek zone (Corinth, Ambracique and Thessaly troughs). In the Pleistocene, the collision of the eastern Hellenic arc (Crete–Rhodes sector) with the Libyan promontory triggered the NE-SW shortening of this wedge. This deformation was accommodated by the bending and fragmentation of that arc, involving the separation of Crete from Rhodes. The extensional deformation that developed in the wake of the bending arc caused the formation of the eastern Cretan basin [82,85,86]. A detailed description of the proposed evolution and of the tectonic events that it can account for is given by [19,64,65,66,67].

3. Tectonics and Seismicity Distribution (Some Examples)

The seismic history of a zone is fundamental information since it may give an idea about the maximum expected intensity. The elaboration of the hazard maps presently available also tries to gain insights into the probability of future earthquakes. However, the reliability of this information cannot easily be recognized, since it is most often obtained by statistical methodologies, assuming that earthquakes are random phenomena, despite the deterministic nature of such events being well known (e.g., [87]). Thus, we think that any attempt to get insights into the spatio-temporal distribution of the next major events can only be carried out when one can count on a thorough reconstruction of the ongoing tectonic setting. This knowledge may allow us to study the connection between the spatio-temporal distribution of major earthquakes and the ongoing tectonic processes. An attempt in this direction has been made for the peri-Adriatic zones, where seismic activity is controlled by the interaction of the Adria plate with the surrounding belts (Figure 3, [19]). Stressed by Nubia, this continental block tries to move roughly NNE-ward, exploiting the seismic activations of the faults located in the surrounding belts (Hellenides, Albanides, Dinarides, Eastern Alps, Apennines and Calabria). To check whether this tectonic framework may involve some regularities in the time patterns of major earthquakes, we have analyzed the seismic histories (since 1600) of these zones. The results obtained so far [88,89,90,91,92] suggest a possible migration of major earthquakes from the southern zones (Northern Hellenides, Albanides, Calabria) to the northern ones (Northern Dinarides, Northern Apennines and Eastern Alps), indicating an interval of 150–200 years for a complete migration of major earthquakes from south to north. When the above results were first published, in 2012, seismic activity had mainly occurred in the southern zones for several decades, potentially implying that in the future the probability of major earthquakes was higher in the central and northern Italian zones. Of course, the reliability of this hypothesis cannot easily be estimated, given the limited number of cases in the period considered (since 1600). However, the fact that the most intense events after 2012 occurred in the central and northern Italian regions (Northern Apennines, 2012, M = 6.1, 5.9, 5.5, Central Apennines 2016, M = 6.2, 5.6, 6.6, 5.8, 6.1, 5.5, 2017 M = 5.7, 5.6 and Northern Apennines 2023 M = 5.5) may encourage us to pursue the above investigation.
Another study [124] describes an attempt to recognize the effects of the well-known strong seismic sequence that has occurred along the North Anatolian fault since 1939 (e.g., [125,126,127]). This sequence triggered a great perturbation of the stress, strain and displacement fields that propagated throughout the Mediterranean area, inducing significant effects on seismic activities. The time patterns of major earthquakes in some key zones suggest that, after 1939, seismic activity underwent a significant increase in the Western Anatolia, Aegean, Sicily and even the Tell belt in Northern Nubia, while the intensity and frequency of major shocks underwent a drastic reduction in the Serbo-Macedonian, Albania, Epirus and Calabria regions. This kind of study might provide insights into the effects of major earthquakes and into the seismic hazard of the surrounding zones in the Mediterranean area.

4. Discussion

As argued in the previous section, a widely agreed recognition of the geodynamic context and tectonic setting in a zone could make defense from natural disasters more efficient. In particular, that information might increase our chances of identifying the zones most prone to future major earthquakes. This implies that significant efforts should be made to mitigate the considerable ambiguity that now affects the geodynamics of the Mediterranean region in the relevant literature. Trying to mitigate this problem, we report here some remarks about the incompatibilities of the most cited alternative geodynamic interpretation (slab-pull model) with the observed deformation pattern.
-
The Oligocene evolution of the Iberian–Alpine belt [17,128,129,130] indicates that when the Balearic basin started developing the presence of a well-developed NW-ward plunging slab was very unlikely. This would imply that the generation of the above basin cannot be attributed to a slab-pull driving force.
-
The migration of the Iberian–Alpine belt in the western Mediterranean started just when the Nubian plate collided with that belt (e.g., [128,131,132,133]. Was this a mere coincidence? How is it possible to neglect the expected effects (shortening) of the belt-parallel compression that stressed the belt after its collision with western Nubia?
-
The strong bending (about 90 degrees) that the Iberian–Alpine belt underwent during its migration (Figure 2A–C) cannot be explained as an effect of slab retreat, as suggested by the results of numerical modeling (e,g., [134,135]).
-
The reactivation of a major discontinuity in the Western Padanian zone (Giudicarie fault system e.g., [44,136]) around the upper Miocene cannot be associated with a slab-pull process [19,64]. Thus, another coeval driving mechanism must be identified to explain the occurrence of such a major tectonic event.
-
The extensional process that formed the northern Tyrrhenian basin in the late Miocene occurred just after the collision of the Iberian–Apennine belt with the Adriatic continental domain. This context is not compatible with the presumed occurrence of a slab-pull mechanism, since that process would have required the very unlikely retreat of a continental domain. One should also consider that during the formation of that basin the northern Apennines did not undergo accretionary activity.
-
The development of a major discontinuity crossing the Ionian (Victor Hensen–Medina fault) and the Pelagian (Sicily Channel fault system) domains has been tentatively explained by proposing various driving forces (e.g., [33,35,36,137,138]), but none of them involves a slab-pull mechanism. Thus, the adoption of this mechanism to explain the Tyrrhenian basins would require the identification of a coeval driving force strong enough to break undeformed foreland domains, such as the Ionian and the Pelagian ones.
-
Around the late Miocene–early Pliocene an old weak zone in the northeastern sector of the Adriatic promontory reactivated as a sinistral transpressional fault system (Schio–Vicenza) [44,46,47]. Since this major event cannot be explained as an effect of a slab-pull mechanism, one should identify another coeval driving force, able to break the northern Adriatic continental foreland.
-
The available evidence indicates that the Maghrebian belt lying north of the Pelagian domain underwent a northward displacement since the late Miocene (e.g., [37,38,39,139]). The fact that this belt sector moved in the opposite direction with respect to the other peri-Tyrrhenian belts is not compatible with the implications of the slab-pull model [19,64].
-
An important aspect of the Pliocene deformation pattern is the generation of the Campidano graben in Sardinia during the Pliocene (e.g., [41]). The significance of this event is due to the fact that the occurrence of tetonic activity in such an isolated block cannot easily be explained by an alternative interpretation, with respect to the one proposed in this work (that is, the interaction of Sardinia with the Adventure–Maghrebian indenter). In particular, the above tectonic activity cannot be related to a slab-pull driving force.
-
The southernmost Tyrrhenian basin (Marsili) developed at a very high rate (19 cm/y) during the Early Pleistocene [140]. Explaining this rate as an effect of a slab-pull force is quite difficult as it is difficult to explain why this rate underwent a drastic reduction in the late Pleistocene.
-
In the Pleistocene, the Calabrian arc underwent a considerable uplift (more than 2000 m, e.g., [141,142,143]). This process is just the opposite of the subsidence of the arc provided by laboratory and numerical modeling of the slab-pull mechanism (e.g., [144,145,146,147]).
-
The slab-pull model has been considerably encouraged by the fact that the Aegean zone is moving significantly faster than Anatolia, as indicated by geodetic velocities (e.g., [148,149]). However, this interpretation does not take into account the possibility that the present velocity field can represent the transient pattern triggered by the post-seismic relaxation induced by the strong seismic sequence that has occurred along the North Anatolian fault since 1939 [150,151].
-
The dextral transpressional strain regime recognized in the northern Aegean zone [6,152,153,154] is not compatible with the presumed S- to SW-ward pull of the Hellenic slab.
-
The available evidence indicates that the Cyclades massif in the Aegean zone has been affected by coeval E-W compression and S-N extension since the early Miocene (e.g., [155,156]). The S-N extension can be interpreted as an effect of the presumed slab-pull force, but explaining why the pull of the Hellenic slab may have caused E-W compression is not simple.
-
The implications of the slab-pull mechanism cannot explain the main features of the western and eastern Cretan basins, concerning their timings, locations and shapes [82,83,85,86]).
-
The roughly N-S extensional regime recognized in the western margin of Anatolia [157,158] cannot be easily explained as an effect of the pull of the Hellenic slab.
-
The very strong E-W compression that caused the S- to SW-ward escape of the Peloponnesus wedge and the occurrence of S-N extension in northern Greece (revealed by the formation of a series of roughly E-W troughs: Corinth, Ambracique, Thessaly) is not compatible with the implications of the presumed slab-pull mechanism in the Aegean arc.
We would remark that all the tectonic features cited above can plausibly and coherently be explained as effects of the interpretation proposed here, as discussed in great detail by [19].
The primary role of extrusion processes in the evolution of the Mediterranean region has been questioned by some authors (e.g., [61]). The underlying argument is based on the hypothesis that the extensional rate in a back arc basin cannot overcome the convergence rate of the confining plates. This assumption would imply that a plate convergence of about 1 cm/y (the one between Nubia and Eurasia) cannot be assumed as the driving force of extensional features (such as the Balearic and Tyrrhenian basins) that opened up at significantly higher rates (some cm/y). However, this argument does not take into account that an extrusion mechanism can involve migration rates of the escaping wedges that are much higher than the rate of the driving plate convergence. This concerns in particular the central sectors of the extruding arc, as can easily be demonstrated by modelings. Furthermore, one should consider that the extrusion rate of wedges is considerably influenced by the size of the corridor through which the extruded material can escape out. In this regard, an interesting example is given by the extrusion of the Calabrian wedge that generated the southern Tyrrhenian basin (Marsili), where a very high extensional rate (19 cm/y) is recognized for the period between 1.6 and 2.1 My [140]. This velocity could be explained by the fact that in such a case the extruded material was forced to flow through the narrow corridor that existed between the Adriatic and the Hyblean continental domains. The end of this rapid escape of Calabria was determined to be around 1.6 My by the collision of that wedge with the continental Adria domain (e.g., [19,159]). The very strong compression that conditioned the escape of the Calabrian wedge during the formation of the Marsili basin is testified by the fact that the stressed crust underwent a vertical bending, as documented by seismic soundings [160].

5. Conclusions

The development of trench-arc-back arc systems in the Mediterranean region has been mainly conditioned by extrusion processes, which have played a basic role in triggering the subduction of large parts of the oceanic domains that lay between Nubia and Eurasia in the late Oligocene. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the consumption of those domains did not occur where the lateral escape of buoyant wedges was not involved. The extensional regimes that generated the main basins (Balearic, central–southern Tyrrhenian, Aegean and Pannonian) developed in the wake of the extruding wedges. The formation of the Balearic system was driven by the convergence between Nubia and Eurasia, which caused the lateral escape of wedges from the Alpine–Iberian belt, at the expense of the Alpine Tethys oceanic domain. The Pannonian basin developed in the wake of two Tethyan wedges (Alcapa and Tisza–Dacia), which underwent opposite rotations in response to the northwestward displacement of the Anatolian–Aegean–Pelagonian Tethyan belt. The central and southern Tyrrhenian basins developed in the wake of wedges that were extruding in response to the indentation of the Adventure block and the Maghrebian belt. The western and eastern Cretan basins were generated by the divergence between the inner and outer sectors of the Aegean Tethyan belt, which was bending southward in response to the westward displacement of Anatolia. The only basin that was generated by a tectonic mechanism not involving extrusion processes is the northern Tyrrhenian. This extensional episode developed as an effect of the divergence between the Adriatic promontory and the Corsica–Sardinia block, after the formation of a major decoupling fault system (Giudicarie) in the northwestern Adriatic promontory. Another basic concept that can be very useful to understand the time–space distribution of tectonic processes in the Mediterranean region is the well-known least action principle. An important example of how this principle has conditioned tectonic activity is given by what happened after the collision between the Aegean Tethyan belt and the Adriatic continental domain around the late Miocene. Since in that strongly resisted context the remaining oceanic domains were mainly lying west of the Adriatic promontory, the most convenient tectonic process was constituted by the decoupling of the Adria plate from Nubia and by the consequent clockwise rotation of that plate. This major change of the plate mosaic and of the related kinematics induced a complex pattern of extrusion processes that finally led to the formation of the central and southern Tyrrhenian basins.
A major implication of the geodynamic interpretation proposed here is that all the tectonic processes that determined the evolution of the Mediterranean region can be explained as effects of the relative motions of the confining plates (as provided by the plate tectonics theory). Thus, there is no need to invoke additional driving forces, such as the gravitational sinking of subducted lithosphere.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology: E.M. and M.V.; Investigation and data curation: E.M., M.V., D.B. and C.T.; Writing: E.M.; Fund acquisition: E.M. and M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Regione Toscana (Italy), Department of Seismic Prevention, grant number: B65F19003190002.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dercourt, J.; Zonenshain, L.P.; Ricou, L.E.; Kazmin, V.G.; Le Pichon, X.; Knipper, A.L.; Grandjacquet, C.; Sbortshikov, I.M.; Geyssant, J.; Lepvrirer, C.; et al. Geological evolution of the Tethys belt from Atlantic to the Pamirs since the Lias. Tectonophysics 1986, 123, 241–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Royden, L.H.; Baldi, T. Early Cenozoic tectonics and paleogeography of the Pannonian and surrounding regions. In The Pannonian Basin: A Study in Basin Evolution; Royden, L.H., Horvath, F., Eds.; American Association of Petroleum Geologists: Tulsa, OK, USA, 1988; Memoir 45; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  3. Robertson, A.H.F. Mesozoic-Tertiary tectonic-sedimentary evolution of a south Tethyan oceanic basin and its margins in southern Turkey. In Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey and the Surrounding Area; Bozkurt, E., Winchester, J.A., Piper, J.D.A., Eds.; Geological Society, London, Special Publications: London, UK, 2000; Volume 173, pp. 97–138. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cavazza, W.; Roure, F.; Spakman, W.; Stampfli, G.; Ziegler, P.A. The TRANSMED Atlas: The Mediterranean Region from Crust to Mantle; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; p. 141. [Google Scholar]
  5. Finetti, I.R. CROP PROJECT, Deep Seismic Exploration of the Central Mediterranean and Italy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; p. 794. [Google Scholar]
  6. Burchfiel, B.; Nakov, R.; Dumurdzanov, N.; Papanikolaou, D.; Tzankov, T.; Serafimovski, T.; King, R.; Kotzev, V.; Todosov, A.; Nurce, B. Evolution and dynamics of the Cenozoic Tectonics of the South Balkan Extensional System. Geosphere 2008, 4, 919–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schmid, S.M.; Bernoulli, D.; Fügenschuh, B.; Matenco, L.; Schefer, S.; Schuster, R.; Tischler, M.; Ustaszewski, K. The Alpine-Carpathian-Dinaridic orogenic system: Correlation and evolution of tectonic units. Swiss J. Geosci. 2008, 101, 139–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Handy, M.R.; Schmid, S.M.; Bousquet, R.; Kissling, E.; Bernoulli, D. Reconciling plate-tectonic reconstructions with the geological-geophysical record of spreading and subduction in the Alps. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2010, 102, 121–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. van Hinsbergen, D.; Schmid, S.M. Map view restoration of Aegean-West Anatolian accretion and extension since the Eocene. Tectonics 2012, 31, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Horváth, F.; Musitz, B.; Balázs, A.; Végh, A.; Uhrin, A.; Nádor, A.; Koroknai, B.; Pap, N.; Tóth, T.; Wórum, G. Evolution of the Pannonian Basin and its geothermal resources. Geothermics 2015, 53, 328–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Karig, D.E. Origin and development of marginal basins in the western Pacific. J. Geophys. Res. 1971, 76, 2542–2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Uyeda, S.; Kanamori, H. Back-arc opening and mode of subduction. J. Geophys. Res. 1979, 84, 1049–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Taylor, B.; Karner, G.D. On the evolution of marginal basins. Rev. Geophys. 1983, 21, 1727–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Honza, E.; Fujioka, K. Formation of arcs and backarc basins inferred from the tectonic evolution of Southeast Asia since the Late Cretaceous. Tectonophysics 2004, 384, 23–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Heuret, A.; Lallemand, S. Plate motions, slab dynamics and back-arc deformation. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2005, 149, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Currie, C.A.; Hyndman, R.D. The thermal structure of subduction zone back arcs. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111, B08404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Viti, M.; Mantovani, E.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C. Generation of trench-arc-backarc systems in the Western Mediterranean region driven by plate convergence. Ital. J. Geosci. 2009, 128, 89–106. [Google Scholar]
  18. Artemieva, I. Back-arc basins: A global view from geophysical synthesis and analysis. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2023, 236, 104242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C. Neogenic Evolution of the Mediterranean Region: Geodynamics, Tectonics and Seismicity; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; p. 174. ISBN 3031621492. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cenni, N.; Mantovani, E.; Baldi, P.; Viti, M. Present kinematics of Central and Northern Italy from continuous GPS measurements. J. Geodyn. 2012, 58, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nocquet, J.M. Present-day kinematics of the Mediterranean: A comprehensive overview of GPS results. Tectonophysics 2012, 579, 220–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Serpelloni, E.; Cavaliere, A.; Martelli, L.; Pintori, F.; Anderlini, L.; Borghi, A.; Randazzo, D.; Bruni, S.; Devoti, R.; Perfetti, P.; et al. Surface velocities and strain-rates in the Euro-Mediterranean Region from massive GPS data processing. Front. Earth Sci. 2022, 10, 907897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Albarello, D. Nubia-Eurasia kinematics: An alternative interpretation from Mediterranean and North Atlantic evidence. Ann. Geophys. 2007, 50, 311–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Viti, M.; Mantovani, E.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C. Plate kinematics and geodynamics in the Central Mediterranean. J. Geodyn. 2011, 51, 190–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sartori, R.; Torelli, L.; Zitellini, N.; Carrara, G.; Magaldi, M.; Mussoni, P. Crustal features along a W-E Tyrrhenian transect from Sardinia to Campania Margins (Central Mediterranean). Tectonophysics 2004, 383, 171–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Finetti, I.R.; Del Ben, A. Ionian Tethys Lithosphere Roll-Back Sinking and Back-Arc Tyrrhenian Opening from New CROP Seismic Data. In CROP PROJECT: Deep Seismic Exploration of the Central Mediterranean and Italy; Finetti, I.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Chapter 21; pp. 483–504. [Google Scholar]
  27. Milia, A.; Torrente, M.M.; Iannace, P. Pliocene-Quaternary orogenic systems in Central Mediterranean: The Apulia-Southern Apennines-Tyrrhenian Sea example. Tectonics 2017, 36, 1614–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Finetti, I.R.; Lentini, F.; Carbone, S.; Del Ben, A.; Di Stefano, A.; Guarnieri, P.; Pipan, M.; Prizzon, A. Crusta1 Tectono-Stratigraphy and Geodynamics of the Southern Apennines from CROP and Other Integrated Geophysical-Geological Data. In CROP PROJECT: Deep Seismic Exploration of the Central Mediterranean and Italy; Finetti, I.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Chapter 12; pp. 225–262. [Google Scholar]
  29. Patacca, E.; Scandone, P. Geology of the Southern Apennines. Boll. Della Soc. Geol. Ital. 2007, 7, 75–119. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ghielmi, M.; Minervini, M.; Nini, C.; Rogledi, S.; Rossi, M. Late Miocene–Middle Pleistocene sequences in the Po Plain–Northern Adriatic Sea (Italy): The stratigraphic record of modification phases affecting a complex foreland basin. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2013, 42, 50–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Del Ben, A.; Barnaba, C.; Toboga, A. Strike-slip systems as the main tectonic features in the Plio-Quaternary kinematics of the Calabrian Arc. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2008, 29, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zecchin, M.; Praeg, D.; Ceramicola, S.; Muto, F. Onshore to offshore correlation of regional unconformities in the Plio-Pleistocene sedimentary successions of the Calabrian Arc (central Mediterranean). Earth-Sci. Rev. 2015, 142, 60–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hieke, W.; Hirschleber, H.B.; Deghani, G.A. The Ionian Abyssal Plain (central Mediterranean Sea): Morphology, sub-bottom structures and geodynamic history—An inventory. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2003, 24, 279–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gallais, F.; Gutscher, M.A.; Graindorge, D.; Chamot-Rooke, N.; Klaeschen, D.A. Miocene tectonic inversion in the Ionian Sea (Central Mediterranean): Evidence from multichannel seismic data. J. Geophys. Res. 2011, 116, B12108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Finetti, I.R.; Del Ben, A. Crustal tectono-stratigraphic setting of the Pelagian foreland from new CROP Seismic Data. In CROP PROJECT, Deep Seismic Exploration of the Central Mediterranean and Italy; Finetti, I.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Chapter 26; pp. 581–596. [Google Scholar]
  36. Civile, D.; Lodolo, E.; Accettella, D.; Geletti, R.; Ben-Avraham, Z.; Deponte, M.; Facchin, L.; Ramella, R.; Romeo, R. The Pantelleria Graben (Sicily Channel, Central Mediterranean): An example of intraplate ‘passive’ rift. Tectonophysics 2010, 490, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sulli, A. Structural framework and crustal characteristics of the Sardinia Channel Alpine transect in the central Mediterranean. Tectonophysics 2000, 324, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Finetti, I.R.; Lentini, F.; Carbone, S.; Del Ben, A.; Di Stefano, A.; Forlin, E.; Guarnieri, P.; Pipan, M.; Prizzon, A. Geological Outline of Sicily and Lithospheric Tectono-Dynamics of its Tyrrhenian Margin from New CROP Seismic Data. In CROP PROJECT: Deep Seismic Exploration of the Central Mediterranean and Italy; Finetti, I.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Chapter 15; pp. 319–376. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pepe, F.; Sulli, A.; Bertotti, G.; Catalano, R. Structural highs formation and their relationship to sedimentary basins in the north Sicily continental margin (southern Tyrrhenian Sea): Implications for the Drepano thrust front. Tectonophysics 2005, 409, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Carmignani, L.; Decandia, F.A.; Fantozzi, P.L.; Lazzarotto, A.; Liotta, D.; Meccheri, M. Tertiary extensional tectonics in Tuscany (northern Apennines, Italy). Tectonophysics 1994, 238, 295–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Finetti, I.R.; Del Ben, A.; Fais, S.; Forlin, E.; Klingele, E.; Lecca, L.; Pipan, M.; Prizzon, A. Crustal Tectono-Stratigraphic Setting and Geodynamics of the Corso-Sardinian Block from New CROP Seismic Data. In CROP PROJECT: Deep Seismic Exploration of the Central Mediterranean and Italy; Finetti, I.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Chapter 18; pp. 413–446. [Google Scholar]
  42. Frizon de Lamotte, D.; Saint Bezar, B.; Bracène, R.; Mercier, E. The two main steps of the Atlas building and geodynamics of the western Mediterranean. Tectonics 2000, 19, 740–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Frizon de Lamotte, D.; Leturmy, P.; Missenard, Y.; Khomsi, S.; Ruiz, G.; Saddiqi, O.; Guillocheau, F.; Michard, A. Mesozoic and Cenozoic vertical movements in the Atlas system (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia): An overview. Tectonophysics 2009, 475, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Castellarin, A.; Cantelli, L. Neo-alpine evolution of the southern eastern Alps. J. Geodyn. 2000, 30, 251–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Verwater, V.F.; Le Breton, E.; Handy, M.R.; Picotti, V.; Najafabadi, A.J.; Haberland, C. Neogene kinematics of the Giudicarie Belt and eastern Southern Alpine orogenic front (northern Italy). Solid Earth 2021, 12, 1309–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zampieri, D.; Massironi, M.; Sedea, R.; Saracino, V. Strike-slip contractional stepovers in the Southern Alps (northeastern Italy). Ecol. Geol. Helv. 2003, 96, 115–123. [Google Scholar]
  47. Pola, M.; Ricciato, A.; Fantoni, R.; Fabbri, P.; Zampieri, D. Architecture of the western margin of the North adriatic foreland: The Schio-Vicenza fault system. Ital. J. Geosci. 2014, 133, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mazzoli, S.; Pierantoni, P.P.; Borraccini, F.; Paltrinieri, W.; Deiana, G. Geometry, segmentation pattern and displacement variations along a major Apennine thrust zone, central Italy. J. Struct. Geol. 2005, 27, 1940–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pizzi, A.; Galadini, F. Pre-existing cross-structures and active fault segmentation in the northern-central Apennines (Italy). Tectonophysics 2009, 476, 304–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mueller, S.; Phillips, R.J. On the initiation of subduction. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1991, 96, 651–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kohlstedt, D.L.; Evans, B.; Mackwell, S.J. Strength of the lithosphere: Constraints imposed by laboratory experiments. J. Geophys. Res. 1995, 100, 17587–17602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Viti, M.; Albarello, D.; Mantovani, E. Rheological profiles in the central-eastern Mediterranean. Ann. Geofis. 1997, 40, 849–864. [Google Scholar]
  53. Burov, E.B. Rheology and strength of the lithosphere. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2011, 28, 1402–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zuber, M.T. Compression of oceanic lithosphere: Analyses of intraplate deformation in the central Indian Basin. J. Geophys. Res. 1987, 92, 4817–4825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Malinverno, A.; Ryan, W.B.F. Extension in the Tyrrhenian sea and shortening in the Apennines as result of arc migration driven by sinking of the lithosphere. Tectonics 1986, 5, 227–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Royden, L.H. Evolution of retreating subduction boundaries formed during continental collision. Tectonics 1993, 12, 629–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rosenbaum, G. Geodynamics of oroclinal bending: Insights from the Mediterranean. J. Geodyn. 2014, 82, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. van Hinsbergen, D.J.J.; Vissers, R.L.M.; Spakman, W. Origin and consequences of western Mediterranean subduction, rollback and slab segmentation. Tectonics 2014, 33, 393–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Brun, J.P.; Faccenna, C.; Gueydan, F.; Sokoutis, D.; Philippon, M.; Kydonakis, K.; Gorini, C. The two-stage Aegean extension, from localized to distributed, a result of slab rollback acceleration. Can. J. Earth Sci. 2016, 53, 1142–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Royden, L.; Faccenna, C. Subduction orogeny and the late Cenozoic evolution of the Mediterranean Arcs. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2018, 46, 261–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Romagny, A.; Jolivet, L.; Menant, A.; Bessière, E.; Maillard, A.; Canva, A.; Gorini, C.; Augier, R. Detailed tectonic reconstructions of the western Mediterranean region for the last 35 Ma, insights on driving mechanisms. Bull. Soc. Géolo. Fr. 2020, 191, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jolivet, L.; Menant, A.; Roche, V.; Le Pourhiet, L.; Maillard, A.; Augier, R.; Do Couto, D.; Gorini, C.; Thinon, I.; Canva, A. Transfer zones in Mediterranean back-arc regions and tear faults. BSGF-Earth Sci. Bull. 2021, 192, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C.; Cenni, N.; Baglione, M.; D’Intinosante, V. Generation of back-arc basins as side effect of shortening processes: Examples from the Central Mediterranean. Int. J. Geosci. 2014, 5, 1062–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C.; Cenni, N. Geodynamics of the central-western Mediterranean region: Plausible and non-plausible driving forces. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2020, 113, 104121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mantovani, E.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C.; Viti, M. Late Cenozoic evolution and present tectonic setting of the Aegean–Hellenic Arc. Geosciences 2022, 12, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C.; Hoxha, I.; Piccardi, L. Geodynamics of the South Balkan and Northern Aegean Regions Driven by the Westward Escape of Anatolia. Int. J. Geosci. 2023, 14, 480–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C.; Baglione, M.; D’Intinosante, V. Ductile Versus Brittle Tectonics in the Anatolian–Aegean–Balkan System. Geosciences 2024, 14, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C. Plio–Quaternary Tectonic Activity in the Northern Nubian Belts: The Main Driving Forces. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Viti, M.; Mantovani, E.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C.; Caggiati, M.; Riva, A. Basic role of extrusion processes in the Late Cenozoice of the western and central Mediterranean belts. Geosciences 2021, 11, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hempton, M.R. Constraints on Arabian plate motion and extensional history of the Red sea. Tectonics 1987, 6, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Okay, A.I.; Zattin, M.; Cavazza, W. Apatite fission-track data for the Miocene Arabia-Eurasia collision. Geology 2010, 38, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Albino, I.; Cavazza, W.; Zattin, M.; Okay, A.I.; Adamia, S.; Sadradze, N. Far-field tectonic effects of the Arabia-Eurasia collision and the inception of the North Anatolian Fault system. Geol. Mag. 2014, 151, 372–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cavazza, W.; Cattò, S.; Zattin, M.; Okay, A.I.; Reiners, P. Thermochronology of the Miocene Arabia-Eurasia collision zone of southeastern Turkey. Geosphere 2018, 14, 2277–2293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fodor, L.; Csontos, L.; Bada, G.; Györfi, I.; Benkovics, L. Tertiary tectonic evolution of the Pannonian basin system and neighbouring orogens: A new synthesis of paleostress data. In The Mediterranean Basins: Tertiary Extension Within the Alpine Orogen; Durand, B., Jolivet, L., Horvath, F., Seranne, M., Eds.; Geological Society, London, Special Publications: London, UK, 1999; Volume 156, pp. 295–334. [Google Scholar]
  75. Balázs, A.; Matenco, L.; Magyar, I.; Horváth, F.; Cloetingh, S. The link between tectonics and sedimentation in back-arc basins: New genetic constraints from the analysis of the Pannonian Basin. Tectonics 2016, 35, 1526–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sartori, R. The main results of ODP leg 107 in the frame of Neogene to Recent geology of perityrrhenian areas. Proc. Ocean Drill. Program Sci. Results 1990, 107, 715–730. [Google Scholar]
  77. Finetti, I.; Boccaletti, M.; Bonini, M.; Del Ben, A.; Geletti, R.; Pipan, M.; Sani, F. Crustal section based on CROP seismic data across the North Tyrrhenian-Northern Apennines-Adriatic Sea. Tectonophysics 2001, 343, 135–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Finetti, I.R.; Boccaletti, M.; Bonini, M.; Del Ben, A.; Pipan, M.; Prizzon, A.; Sani, F. Lithospheric tectono-stratigraphic setting of the Ligurian Sea-Northern Apennines-Adriatic foreland from integrated CROP seismic data. In CROP PROJECT: Deep Seismic Exploration of the Central Mediterranean and Italy; Finetti, I.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Chapter 8; pp. 119–158. [Google Scholar]
  79. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Tamburelli, C.; Babbucci, D.; Baglione, M.; D’Intinosante, V. Tectonic Setting and Spatiotemporal Earthquake Distribution in Northern Nubia and Iberia. Geosciences 2025, 15, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Casula, G.; Cherchi, A.; Montadert, L.; Murru, M.; Sarria, E. The Cenozoic graben system of Sardinia (Italy): Geodynamic evolution from new seismic and field data. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2001, 18, 863–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cocco, F.; Funedda, A.; Patacca, E.; Scandone, P. Plio-Pleistocene extensional tectonics in the Campidano Graben (SW Sardinia, Italy): Preliminary note. Rend. Online Soc. Geol. Ital. 2013, 29, 31–34. [Google Scholar]
  82. Mercier, J.L.; Simeakis, K.; Sorel, D.; Vergely, P. Extensional tectonic regimes in the Aegean basins during the Cenozoic. Basin Res. 1989, 2, 49–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Meulenkamp, J.E.; Van Der Zwan, G.J.; Van Wamel, W.A. On late Miocene to recent vertical motions in the Cretan segment of the Hellenic arc. Tectonophysics 1994, 234, 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Skampa, E.; Dimiza, M.D.; Arabas, A.; Gogou, A.; Panagiotopoulos, I.P.; Tsourou, T.; Velaoras, D.; Karagiorgas, M.; Baumann, K.-H.; Triantaphyllou, M.V. The Cretan Basin (South Aegean Sea, NE Mediterranean) in the Early Pliocene: A paleoceanographic reconstruction. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2024, 640, 112085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Armijo, R.; Lyon-Caen, H.; Papanastassiou, D. East-west extension and Holocene normal-fault scarps in the Hellenic arc. Geology 1992, 20, 491–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Duermeijer, C.; Nyst, M.; Meijer, P.; Langereis, C.; Spakman, W. Neogene evolution of the Aegean arc: Paleomagnetic and geodetic evidence for a rapid and young rotation phase. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2000, 176, 509–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Stein, S.; Geller, R.J.; Liu, M. Why earthquake hazard maps often fail and what to do about it. Tectonophysics 2012, 562–563, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Cenni, N.; Tamburelli, C.; Vannucchi, A. Middle term prediction of earthquakes in Italy: Some remarks on empirical and deterministic approaches. Boll. Geof. Teor. Appl. 2012, 53, 89–111. [Google Scholar]
  89. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C.; Cenni, N.; Baglione, M.; D’Intinosante, V. Present Tectonic Setting and Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Seismicity in the Apennine Belt. Int. J. Geosci. 2015, 6, 429–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mantovani, E.; Tamburelli, C.; Babbucci, D.; Viti, M.; Cenni, N. Tectonics and Seismicity in the Periadriatic Zones: Implications for Seismic Hazard in Italy. In Earthquakes—From Tectonics to Buildings; Salazar, W., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Babbucci, D.; Tamburelli, C.; Baglione, M.; D’Intinosante, V. Short-Term Kinematics of the Adria Plate and Space-Time Distribution of Major Peri-Adriatic Earthquakes. Int. J. Geosci. 2022, 13, 1057–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Viti, M.; Mantovani, E.; Babbucci, D.; Cenni, N.; Tamburelli, C. Where the next strong earthquake in Italy: Possible insights by a deterministic approach. Boll. Geof. Teor. Appl. 2015, 56, 329–350. [Google Scholar]
  93. Rothé, J.P. The Seismicity of the Earth (1953–1965); UNESCO Series of Earth Sciences; UNESCO: Brussels, Belgium, 1969; p. 336. [Google Scholar]
  94. Karnik, V. Seismicity of the European Area, Part and Part II; Reidel Publishing Company: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  95. Rothé, J.P. Seismicité de l’Atlantique oriental, de la Méditerranée occidentale et de ses bordures. Rev. Géogr. Phys. Géol. Dyn. 1971, 13, 419–428. [Google Scholar]
  96. Roussel, J. Les zones actives et la frequence des seismes en Algerie (1716–1970). Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afr. Nord. Alger. 1973, 64, 211–227. [Google Scholar]
  97. Shebalin, N.V.; Karnik, V.; Hadzievski, D. Catalogue of Earthquakes (Part I, 1901–1970); UNDP-Unesco Survey of the Seismicity of Balkan Region: Skopje, North Macedonia, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ben-Menahem, A. Earthquake catalogue for the Middle East (92 B.C.-1980 A.D.). Boll. Geofis. Teor. Appl. 1979, XXI, 245–310. [Google Scholar]
  99. Poirier, J.P.; Taher, M.A. Historical seismicity in the near and middle East, north Africa and Spain from Arabic documents (VIIth–XVIIIth century). Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1980, 70, 2185–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kondorskaya, N.V.; Shebalin, N.V. New catalog of strong earthquakes in the U.S.S.R. from ancient times through 1977. In World Data Center A for Solid Earth Geophysics; EDIS: Boulder, CO, USA, 1982; p. 173. [Google Scholar]
  101. Mezcua, J.; Martinez Solares, J.M. Sismicidad del Area Ibero-Moghrebi; Publicacion 203; Instituto Geográfico Nacional: Madrid, Spain, 1983; p. 302. [Google Scholar]
  102. Ambraseys, N.N. Material for the investigation of the seismicity of Tripolitania (Libya). Boll. Geof. Teor. Appl. 1984, XXVI, 143–155. [Google Scholar]
  103. Ambraseys, N.N.; Finkel, C.F. Seismicity of Turkey and neighbouring regions, 1899–1915. Ann. Geophys. 1987, 5B, 501–726. [Google Scholar]
  104. Comninakis, P.E.; Papazachos, B.C. A Catalogue of Earthquakes in Greece and the Surrounding Area for the Period 1901–1985; Geophysical Laboratory Publications: Thessaloniki, Greece, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  105. Al Hakeem, K. Studying of historical earthquakes activity in Syria. In Workshop on Historical Seismicity of Central-Eastern Mediterranean Region; Margottini, C., Serva, L., Eds.; ENEA-IAEA: Rome, Italy, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  106. Eva, C.; Riuscetti, M.; Slejko, D. Seismicity of the Black sea region. Boll. Geof. Teor. Appl. 1988, 30, 53–66. [Google Scholar]
  107. Benouar, D. Materials for the investigation of the seismicity of Algeria and adjacent regions during the twentieth century. Ann. Di Geofis. 1994, XXXVII, 459–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Khair, K.; Karakaisis, G.F.; Papadimitriou, E.E. Seismic zonation oft he Dead Sea trasform fault area. Ann. Di Geofis. 2000, 43, 61–79. [Google Scholar]
  109. Sbeinati, M.R.; Darawcheh, R.; Mouty, M. The historical earthquakes of Syria: An analysis of large and moderate earthquakes from 1365 B.C. to 1900 A.D. Ann. Geophys. 2005, 3, 347–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Godey, S.; Bossu, R.; Guilbert, J.; Mazet-Roux, G. The Euro-Mediterranean Bulletin: A comprehensive seismological bulletin at regional scale. Seismol. Res. Lett. 2006, 77, 460–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Peláez, J.A.; Chourak, M.; Tadili, B.A.; Aït Brahim, L.; Hamdache, M.; López Casado, C.; Martínez Solares, J.M.A. Catalog of Main Moroccan Earthquakes from 1045 to 2005. Seismol. Res. Lett. 2007, 78, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Abde-Ramal, K.; Al-Amri, A.M.S.; Abdel-Moneit, E. Seismicity of Sinai peninsula, Egypt. Arab J. Geosci. 2009, 2, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ekström, G.; Nettles, M.; Dziewonski, A. The global CMT project 2004–2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13.017 earthquakes. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2012, 200–201, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Grünthal, G.; Wahlström, R. The European-Mediterranean Earthquake Catalogue (EMEC) for the last millennium. J. Seismol. 2012, 16, 535–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Makropoulos, K.; Kaviris, G.; Kouskouna, V. An updated and extended earthquake catalogue for Greece and adjacent areas since 1900. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci 2012, 12, 1425–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Sesetyan, K.; Demircioglu, M.; Rovida, A.; Albini, P.; Stucchi, M.; with the collaboration of Zare, M.; Viganò, D.; Locati, M. SHARE-CET, the SHARE Earthquake Catalogue for Central and Eastern Turkey Complementing the SHARE European Catalogue (SHEEC). 2012. Available online: https://www.emidius.eu/SHEEC/ (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  117. Stucchi, M.; Rovida, A.; Capera, A.A.G.; Alexandre, P.; Camelbeeck, T.; Demircioglu, M.B.; Gasperini, P.; Kouskouna, V.; Musson, R.M.W.; Radulian, M.; et al. The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) 1000–1899. J. Seismol. 2013, 17, 523–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. ISIDe Working Group. Italian Seismological Instrumental and Parametric Database (ISIDe); Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV): Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  119. Cherkaoui, T.-E.; Medina, F.; Mridekh, A. Re-examination of the historical 11 May, 1624 Fez earthquake parameters. Física Tierra 2017, 29, 135–157. [Google Scholar]
  120. Poujol, A.; Ritz, J.-F.; Vernant, P.; Huot, S.; Maate, S.; Tahayt, A. Which fault destroyed Fes city (Morocco) in 1755? A new insight from the Holocene deformations observed along the southern border of Gibraltar arc. Tectonophysics 2017, 712, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Suwihli, S.S.; Paradise, T.R. Creating a Libyan Earthquake Archive: From Classical Times to the Present. Open J. Earthq. Res. 2020, 9, 367–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Rovida, A.; Locati, M.; Camassi, R.; Lolli, B.; Gasperini, P.; Antonucci, A. Italian Parametric Earthquake Catalogue (CPTI15); Version 3.0; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV): Roma, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS). Available online: http://ds.iris.edu/ieb/ (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  124. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Tamburelli, C.; Babbucci, D.; Baglione, M.; D’Intinosante, V. Seismicity Patterns in Some Mediterranean Zones After the 1939 Anatolian Earthquake: Insights on Seismic Risk and the Tectonic Setting. GeoHazards 2025, 6, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Barka, A.A. Slip distribution along the North Atlantic fault associated with the large earthquakes of the period 1939 to 1967. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1996, 86, 1238–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hubert-Ferrari, A.; Armijo, R.; King, G.; Meyer, B.; Barka, A. Morphology, displacement, and slip rates along the North Anatolian Fault, Turkey. J. Geophys. Res. 2002, 107, ETG 9-1–ETG 9-33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Şengör, A.M.C.; Tüysüz, O.; İmren, C.; Sakınç, M.; Eyidoğan, H.; Görü, N.; Le Pichon, X.; Rangin, C. The North Anatolian Fault. A New look. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2005, 33, 37–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Finetti, I.R.; Forlin, E.; Pipan, M. Lithospheric Tectono-Dynamics of the Balearic Basin Opening from CROP-ECORS Seismic Data. In CROP PROJECT, Deep Seismic Exploration of the Central Mediterranean and Italy; Finetti, I.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Chapter 20; pp. 471–481. [Google Scholar]
  129. Molli, G. Northern Apennine-Corsica Orogenic System: An Updated Overview. In Tectonic Aspects of the Alpine-Dinarides-Carpathians System; Siegesmund, S., Fugensheu, B., Froitzheim, N., Eds.; The Geological Society: London, UK, 2008; Volume 298, pp. 413–442. [Google Scholar]
  130. Handy, M.R.; Ustaszewski, K.; Kissling, E. Reconstructing the Alps–Carpathians–Dinarides as a key to understanding switches in subduction polarity, slab gaps and surface motion. Int. J. Earth Sci. 2015, 104, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Azanon, J.M.; Crespo-Blanc, A.; Garcia-Duenas, V. Continental collision, crustal thinning and nappe forming during the pre-Miocene evolution of the Alpujarride Complex (Alboran Domain, Betics). J. Struct. Geol. 1997, 19, 1055–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Casas Sainz, A.-M.; Faccenna, C. Tertiary compressional deformation of the Iberian plate. Terra Nova 2001, 13, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Michard, A.; Chalouan, A.; Feinberg, H.; Goffé, B.; Montigny, R. How does the Alpine belt end between Spain and Morocco? Bull. Soc. Géol. Fr. 2002, 173, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Schellart, W.P.; Freeman, J.; Stegman, D.R.; Moresi, L.; May, D. Evolution and diversity of subduction zones controlled by slab width. Nature 2007, 446, 308–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Schellart, W.P.; Stegman, D.R.; Farrington, R.J.; Moresi, L. Influence of lateral slab edge distance on plate velocity, trench velocity, and subduction partitioning. J. Geophys. Res. 2011, 116, B10408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Castellarin, A.; TRANSALP Working Group. Structural synthesis of the Eastern Alps: A collisional orogenic chain. In Proceedings of the Geology of Italy: Special Volume of the Italian Geological Society for the 32nd International Geological Congress, Florence, Italy, 20–28 August 2004; Crescenti, V., D’Offizi, S., Merlino, S., Sacchi, L., Eds.; Società Geologica Italiana: Rome, Italy, 2004; pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  137. Reuther, C.-D.; Ben Avraham, Z.; Grasso, M. Origin and role of major strike-slip transfers during plate collision in the Central Mediterranean. Terra Nova 1993, 5, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Civile, D.; Brancolini, G.; Lodolo, E.; Forlin, E.; Accaino, F.; Zecchin, M.; Brancatelli, G. Morphostructural setting and tectonic evolution of the central part of the Sicilian Channel (Central Mediterranean). Lithosphere 2021, 2021, 7866771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ben Avraham, Z.; Boccaletti, M.; Cello, G.; Grasso, M.; Lentini, F.; Torelli, L.; Tortorici, L. Principali domini strutturali originatisi dalla collisione Neogenico-Quaternaria nel Mediterraneo Centrale. Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital. 1990, 45, 453–462. [Google Scholar]
  140. Nicolosi, I.; Speranza, F.; Chiappini, M. Ultrafast Oceanic Spreading of the Marsili Basin, Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. Evidence from Magnetic Anomaly Analysis. Geology 2006, 34, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zecchin, M.; Nalin, R.; Roda, C. Raised Pleistocene marine terraces of the Crotone peninsula (Calabria, southern Italy): Facies analysis and organization of their deposits. Sediment. Geol. 2004, 172, 165–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Antonioli, F.; Ferranti, L.; Lambeck, K.; Kershaw, S.; Verrubbi, V.; Dai Pra, G. Late Pleistocene to Holocene record of changing uplift rates in Southern Calabria and northeastern Sicily (Southern Italy, Central Mediterranean Sea). Tectonophysics 2006, 422, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Roda-Boluda, D.C.; Whittaker, A.C. Structural and geomorphic constraints on active normal faulting and landscape evolution in Calabria, Italy. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 2017, 174, 701–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Shemenda, A.I. Subduction of the lithosphere and back arc dynamics: Insights from physical modelling. J. Geophys. Res. 1993, 98, 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Hassani, R.; Jongmans, D.; Chery, J. Study of plate deformation and stress in subduction processes using two dimensional numerical models. J. Geophys. Res. 1997, 102, 17951–17965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Hampel, A.; Pfiffner, A. Relative importance of trenchward upper plate motion and friction along the plate interface for the topographic evolution of subduction related mountain belts. In Analogue and Numerica; Buiter, S.J.H., Schreurs, G., Eds.; Geological Society, London, Special Publications: London, UK, 2006; Volume 253, pp. 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Husson, L. Dynamic topography above retreating subduction zones. Geology 2006, 34, 741–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Reilinger, R.E.; McClusky, S.; Vernant, P.; Lawrence, S.; Ergintav, S.; Cakmak, R.; Ozener, H.; Kadirov, F.; Guliev, I.; Stepanyan, R.; et al. GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa–Arabia–Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111, B05411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Faccenna, C.; Becker, T.W.; Auer, L.; Billi, A.; Boschi, L.; Brun, J.P.; Capitanio, F.A.; Funiciello, F.; Horvàth, F.; Jolivet, L.; et al. Mantle dynamics in the Mediterranean. Rev. Geophys. 2014, 52, 283–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Cenni, N.; Albarello, D.; Babbucci, D. Short and long-term deformation patterns in the Aegean-Anatolian systems: Insights from space geodetic data (GPS). Geophys. Res. Lett. 2001, 28, 2325–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Cenni, N.; D’onza, F.; Viti, M.; Mantovani, E.; Albarello, D.; Babbucci, D. Post seismic relaxation processes in the Aegean-Anatolian system: Insights from space geodetic data (GPS) and geological/geophysical evidence. Boll. Geofis. Teor. Appl. 2002, 43, 23–36. [Google Scholar]
  152. Koukouvelas, I.K.; Aydin, A. Fault Structure and Related Basins of the North Aegean Sea and Its Surroundings. Tectonics 2002, 21, 10-1–10-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Kokkalas, S.; Aydin, A. Is there a link between faulting and magmatism in the south-central Aegean Sea? Geol. Mag. 2013, 150, 193–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Kassaras, I.; Kapetanidis, V.; Ganas, A.; Tzanis, A.; Kosma, C.; Karakonstantis, A.; Valkaniotis, S.; Chailas, S.; Kouskouna, V.; Papadimitriou, P. The New Seismotectonic Atlas of Greece (v1.0) and Its Implementation. Geosciences 2020, 10, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Avigad, D.; Ziv, A.; Garfunkel, Z. Ductile and brittle shortening, extension-parallel folds and maintenance of crustal thickness in the central Aegean (Cyclades, Greece). Tectonics 2001, 20, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Virgo, S.; von Hagke, C.; Urai, J.L. Multiphase boudinage: A case study of amphibolites in marble in the Naxos migmatite core. Solid. Earth 2018, 9, 91–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Kiratzi, A.A. Stress tensor inversions along the westernmost North Anatolian Fault Zone and its continuation into the North Aegean Sea. Geophys. J. Int. 2002, 151, 360–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Emre, Ö.; Duman, T.Y.; Özalp, S.; Şaroğlu, F.; Olgun, Ş.; Elmacı, H.; Çan, T. Active fault database of Turkey. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 3229–3275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Filice, F.; Sieber, L. The culmination of an oblique time-trangressive arc continent collision: The Pollino Massif Between Calabria and the Southern Apennines, Italy. Tectonics 2019, 38, 3261–3280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Finetti, I.R. The Calabrian Arc and subducting Ionian slab from new CROP Seismic Data. In CROP PROJECT: Deep Seismic Exploration of the Central Mediterranean and Italy; Finetti, I.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Chapter 17; pp. 393–412. [Google Scholar]
Encyclopedia 05 00097 g002
Figure 2. (A) Late Oligocene. The Nubian and Eurasian plates are separated by the Alpine belt. The convergence between Nubia and Eurasia induces a strong belt parallel compression on the Alpine–Iberian belt, causing its bending, at the expense of the Alpine Tethys oceanic domain. Blue arrows tentatively indicate the kinematic pattern. LG = Lion gulf, VG = Valencia gulf. (B) Early Miocene. The northern sector of the Alpine–Iberian–Apennine belt (NA) decouples from the southern sector (SA) by the dextral transpressional North Balearic fault (NB) and undergoes a counterclockwise rotation. TAF = Trans-Anatolian fault system. (C) Upper–late Miocene. The bending/migration of the Alpine–Iberian arc, and consequently the formation of the Balearic basin, ceased after the collision of the S-N arc (Alpine–Apennine belt) with the Adriatic continental domain (middle Miocene) and the collision of the E-W sector (Alpine–Maghrebian belt) with the African continental domain (upper Miocene). A similar mechanism, involving the migration and bending of the Tethyan Alpine belt at the expense of the Magura oceanic domain, led to the formation of the Pannonian basin. DSF = Dead Sea fault system, Gi = Giudicarie fault system, NT = Northern Tyrrhenian. (D) Pliocene. The collision between the Anatolian–Aegean Tethyan system and the Adriatic promontory causes the decoupling of a large part of that promontory (Adria plate) from Nubia by the formation of a long discontinuity (Victor Hensen–Medina–Sicily Channel). Am = Ambracique trough, AW = Adventure wedge, Ce = Cephalonia fault, Co = Corinth trough, CR = Crete–Rhodes (Eastern Hellenic Arc), CAp = Central Apennines, CT = Central Tyrrhenian (Vavilov basin), Cy = Cyprus, CyA = Cyclades Arc, Ep = Epirus, LP = Libyan promontory, NAp = Northern Apennines, NAT= North Aegean trough, Pe = Peloponnesus, SAp = Southern Apennines, SCH = Sicily Channel, SM = Serbo-Macedonian zone, Th = Thessaly, WPa = Western Padanian sector. Colors, symbols and other abbreviations as in Figure 1.
Figure 2. (A) Late Oligocene. The Nubian and Eurasian plates are separated by the Alpine belt. The convergence between Nubia and Eurasia induces a strong belt parallel compression on the Alpine–Iberian belt, causing its bending, at the expense of the Alpine Tethys oceanic domain. Blue arrows tentatively indicate the kinematic pattern. LG = Lion gulf, VG = Valencia gulf. (B) Early Miocene. The northern sector of the Alpine–Iberian–Apennine belt (NA) decouples from the southern sector (SA) by the dextral transpressional North Balearic fault (NB) and undergoes a counterclockwise rotation. TAF = Trans-Anatolian fault system. (C) Upper–late Miocene. The bending/migration of the Alpine–Iberian arc, and consequently the formation of the Balearic basin, ceased after the collision of the S-N arc (Alpine–Apennine belt) with the Adriatic continental domain (middle Miocene) and the collision of the E-W sector (Alpine–Maghrebian belt) with the African continental domain (upper Miocene). A similar mechanism, involving the migration and bending of the Tethyan Alpine belt at the expense of the Magura oceanic domain, led to the formation of the Pannonian basin. DSF = Dead Sea fault system, Gi = Giudicarie fault system, NT = Northern Tyrrhenian. (D) Pliocene. The collision between the Anatolian–Aegean Tethyan system and the Adriatic promontory causes the decoupling of a large part of that promontory (Adria plate) from Nubia by the formation of a long discontinuity (Victor Hensen–Medina–Sicily Channel). Am = Ambracique trough, AW = Adventure wedge, Ce = Cephalonia fault, Co = Corinth trough, CR = Crete–Rhodes (Eastern Hellenic Arc), CAp = Central Apennines, CT = Central Tyrrhenian (Vavilov basin), Cy = Cyprus, CyA = Cyclades Arc, Ep = Epirus, LP = Libyan promontory, NAp = Northern Apennines, NAT= North Aegean trough, Pe = Peloponnesus, SAp = Southern Apennines, SCH = Sicily Channel, SM = Serbo-Macedonian zone, Th = Thessaly, WPa = Western Padanian sector. Colors, symbols and other abbreviations as in Figure 1.
Encyclopedia 05 00097 g002
Encyclopedia 05 00097 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of major earthquakes (M > 5.0) in the Mediterranean region since 1600. Data from [93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123]. AL = Albania, AE = Aegean, CA = Calabria, EP = Epirus, SI = Sicily, SM = Serbo-Macedonia, TE = Tell, WA = Western Anatolia.
Figure 3. Distribution of major earthquakes (M > 5.0) in the Mediterranean region since 1600. Data from [93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123]. AL = Albania, AE = Aegean, CA = Calabria, EP = Epirus, SI = Sicily, SM = Serbo-Macedonia, TE = Tell, WA = Western Anatolia.
Encyclopedia 05 00097 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mantovani, E.; Viti, M.; Tamburelli, C.; Babbucci, D. Geodynamics of the Mediterranean Region: Primary Role of Extrusion Processes. Encyclopedia 2025, 5, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030097

AMA Style

Mantovani E, Viti M, Tamburelli C, Babbucci D. Geodynamics of the Mediterranean Region: Primary Role of Extrusion Processes. Encyclopedia. 2025; 5(3):97. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030097

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mantovani, Enzo, Marcello Viti, Caterina Tamburelli, and Daniele Babbucci. 2025. "Geodynamics of the Mediterranean Region: Primary Role of Extrusion Processes" Encyclopedia 5, no. 3: 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030097

APA Style

Mantovani, E., Viti, M., Tamburelli, C., & Babbucci, D. (2025). Geodynamics of the Mediterranean Region: Primary Role of Extrusion Processes. Encyclopedia, 5(3), 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5030097

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop