Reply to the “Comment on “The May 1 20 (MW 6.1) and 29 (MW 6.0), 2012, Emilia (Po Plain, northern Italy) earthquakes: New seismotectonic implications from subsurface geology and high-quality hypocenter location” by Carannante et al., 2015” by Bonini L., et al

Abstract

In their comments Bonini et al. argue that our seismotectonic interpretation of the Emilia 2012 seismic sequence does not agree with observations, and follow three lines of arguments to support their statement. These concern the structural interpretation of seismic reflection profiles, the relationship between seismogenic sources and seismicity patterns, and the fit of inferred fault geometry to InSAR observations. These lines of arguments are mostly repeating what has been previously presented by the same authors, and none of them, as discussed in detail in our reply, presents a strong case against our structural interpretation, that, we are convinced, does not conflict with the available data. The two adjacent rupture surfaces outlined by accurately relocated aftershocks are an indication of the presence of two different active fault planes. Interpretation of seismic profiles supports seismological observation and indicates the occurrence of relevant along-strike changes in structural style. These pieces of information have been integrated to build a new seismotectonic interpretation for the area of the Emilia 2012 seismic sequence. Analysis of geodetic data from the area of the Emilia earthquakes has produced very different models of the fault planes; unlike what has been stated by Bonini et al., who see a difficult fit to InSAR data for the fault planes we have identified, the most recent results are consistent with our interpretation that see a steep fault in the upper 8–10 km under the Mirandola anticline. We point out that the geological structures in the subsurface of the Ferrara Arc do change along strike, and the attempt of Bonini et al. to explain both the May 20 and May 29 sequences using a single cross section is not appropriate.