Science1 publisher2 min readPublished
Earthquakes along the Apennines cluster above a front where deep crust peels into the mantle
University of Florence geologists link quakes along nearly all of the 1,200-km Apennines to a front where deep crust peels into the mantle. One moving front would account for both the stretching and the squeezing, and for where Italy's quakes are likely to strike.
The Scientist · Science desk
What happened
- Tavani's team compared GPS and satellite ground-motion data with earthquake records and maps of deep structures, then checked the patterns against a simple crust-bending model.
- As the unzipping front moves east, it pulls the crust above it apart and squeezes the rock ahead of it together.
- The Tyrrhenian seafloor west of Italy stopped opening about 2 million years ago, yet stretching and squeezing continued in the mountains for reasons that had gone unexplained.
- Earlier computer models had proposed peeling crust as the cause, but clear evidence for it had been hard to find.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- contradiction Phys.org's headline says peeling 'may explain' the motions while its text says the team 'confirmed' it, so how firmly hazard work can lean on the front depends on which wording survives independent tests.
- constraint The match holds along almost the entire range, so the segments outside it are where a hazard map built on the front's position would be least reliable.
- precedent The authors suggest peeling may keep other aging mountain ranges active, so the same comparison of satellite motion and seismicity becomes a test to run on those ranges.
The study runs two tests, and one is stronger than the other. The first is a map comparison. Earthquakes and active ground movement fall in a narrow band directly above the unzipping front, the line where the deep crust is peeling away today [5]. On its own, a match like that is a correlation. A band of faulting can sit over a deep structure for more than one reason.
The second test is the better experiment. The team used a simple model of how crust bends as its lower layers peel away. It reproduced where the ground around the front is rising and where it is sinking [7]. Vertical motion is a separate observable from earthquake location, so getting both from one process is harder to put down to chance. As phys.org reports it, peeling alone can explain the pattern of motion across the range [7]. Showing that a cause is enough is a different finding from showing it is the only one, and the reported comparison is against one simple model [4].
The timing is where a deep driver helps most. Stretching in the Tyrrhenian crust began about 10 million years ago [8], so the basin opened for roughly 8 million years before it stalled [1]. According to phys.org, the peeling result explains why the Apennines have stayed active long after the seafloor stopped opening [14].
The paper's title is firmer than the press coverage. It says lower-crustal unzipping "drives active orogenic deformation" [3]. I'd grade the evidence a step below that. A spatial match along most of a 1,200-kilometer range [1][5], together with a minimal model that reproduces an independent signal, makes peeling the leading candidate. That verdict depends on competing explanations fitting the same data worse.
The thing this doesn't tell you is how large the earthquakes above the front will be, or how often they will come. Location is one input to a hazard estimate. If the front's position holds up, that input gets better [11].
What to watch
- Whether independent groups fit competing mechanisms to the same GPS, satellite and earthquake data, and whether those fits come out worse than peeling.
- Whether Italy's seismic-hazard modelers use the unzipping front's position when drawing earthquake source zones.
- A measured rate for the front's eastward migration, which would say how quickly the band of activity moves across the range.