Reply to comment by D. Carbone and D. Patanè on “Multi-disciplinary investigation on a lava fountain preceding a flank eruption: the 10 May 2008 Etna case”

Abstract

Bonaccorso et al. [2011a] investigated the source and magma dynamics of the 10 May 2008 lava fountain at the South-East Crater (SEC) of Mount Etna through a multidisciplinary approach that integrated a wide data set ranging from bulk rock compositions of the erupted products to seismic tremor and long-period events, tilt and gravity signals. Using a large dataset, the study provided a robust framework in which the mechanism of the 10 May 2008 lava fountain is explained as a violent release of bubble-rich magma layer previously trapped at the top of a shallow reservoir located between −0.5 and 1.5 km above sea level (asl). This result is in agreement with recent relevant literature [Allard et al., 2005; Vergniolle and Ripepe, 2008; Aiuppa et al., 2010; Andronico and Corsaro, 2011; Bonaccorso et al., 2011b; Calvari et al., 2011; Vergniolle and Gaudemer, 2012]. In the introduction of their comment Carbone and Patanè [submitted] affirm that in their opinion the interpretation that “the lava fountain was generated by the fragmentation of a foam layer trapped at the top of shallow reservoir” is not soundly based. This comment’s conclusion is puzzling because one of the comment’s authors (D. Patanè) is also a co-author on the paper by Aiuppa et al. [2010] where the same conclusion, now criticized, was well supported (see figure 5 and conclusions of that paper). In particular, in the conclusions Aiuppa et al. [2010] reported that “The paroxysmal SEC episodes mark the violent release of a bubble-rich magma layer, with bubbles having relatively shallow reservoir ...", that is, the same conclusion now criticized in the comment. After this, the comment raises issues concerning the analysis and interpretation of gravity and tilt data in the multidisciplinary approach presented by Bonaccorso et al. [2011a]. The comment by Carbone and Patanè is divided into 4 paragraphs, labelled “1. Introduction”, “2. Gravity changes”, “3. Tilt changes” and “4. Concluding remarks” with only paragraphs 2 and 3 containing specific comments. In this reply, we address these two paragraphs, and we shall show how the assumptions underlying the comment are merely speculative and why the results presented by Bonaccorso et al.[2011a] remain valid.