Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached Review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are submitting to Geosciences Special Issues “Advanced Studies in Structural Geology: The Role of the Tectonics on Applied Geology Aspects” the revised manuscript entitled: Tectonic inversion and deformation differences in the transition from Ionian Basin to Apulian platform: the example from Ionian Islands, Greece, by Avraam Zelilidis, Nicolina Bourli, Elena Zoumpouli, and Angelos G. Maravelis.

 

We accepted the most comments, and we improved the manuscript as you suggested.
Five figures have been added to the manuscript such as geological and geomorphological maps from each studied Island and lithostratigraphic columns from Ionian basin and Apulian platform margins.

We believe that these additions were necessary as they contributed significantly to the comprehending and improvement of the text.

 

In detail:

 

Reviewer 1

Review of the Manuscript: Tectonic inversion and deformation differences in the transition from Ionian Basin to Apulian platform: the example from Ionian Islands, Greece by Zelilidis A., Bourli N., Zoumpouli E. and Maravelis A.G., submitted to Geosciences.

The work draws conclusions that are quite acceptable, in line with the knowledge on the deformation pattern and rheological behavior of the sedimentary cover.

However, this very short and succinct manuscript offers little space to develop the arguments that led to the deformation model of the Ionian Islands (northwestern Greece).

In particular, Authors rely - perhaps excessively - on published works for the elaboration of the geological cross-sections, which represent the backbone of the paper (Figs. 2-4).

In my opinion, the manuscript can be significantly improved and substantiated, both in terms of text and figures. Furthermore, careful editorial control is certainly necessary.

Below are the main remarks:

• lines 10, 11, 19, 17, 19, 21: in general, the Abstract should not include too many acronyms, so I suggest deleting IB, AP, APM, KFT and FKT. The exception may be represented by KSSF, which should also replace everywhere - even in the text - the other acronyms used (even three: KFT, FKT and KTF!).

all acronyms were deleted in the Abstract and we kept the KTF generally in the text.

• lines 12, 13, 14: the sentence must be rewritten as "Late Jurassic to Early Eocene NNW-SSE extension, followed by Middle Eocene to Middle Miocene NNW-SSE compression, characterizes the Ionian Basin".

Done.

• line 25: please write Ionian Basin.

Done.

• line 35: write have instead of has.

Done.

• line 43: In the Mediterranean region, a notable example of tectonic inversion is provided by the north-western African (Maghrebian) margin, which began to shorten again starting from the late Miocene. I suggest highlighting this example by citing Mauffret (2006).

We did not use this reference as we believe that details about crustal movements with the current kinetics will not contribute to our model and perhaps change the focus of our idea. Therefore, we do not use details about these movements.

 

• line 48: write outcrop instead of outcropped.

Done

• line 50: write Hellenic Fold and Thrust Belt (FTB).

Done

• line 56: write contractional instead of contractual (?!).

Done

• line 57: write Triassic evaporites.

Done.

• line 60: I suggest concluding the sentence by adding two important references on the tectonics and rheology of evaporites: Hudec and Jackson (2007); Jackson and Hudec (2017).
  Done.
  
  
• line 72: write outcrop here instead of have outcropped.

Done.

• line 74: delete (FTB).

Done.

• line 78: Figure 1 is currently not readable. Please insert a figure with much higher definition.

Done

• lines 84-85: write contractional instead of contractual. Also, write Triassic evaporites.
  Done

 

• lines 102, 104, 111: the text refers to Figure 1, not to Figure 2. In fact, neither the Corfu Island nor the strike-slip faults are indicated in the cross-sections of Figure 2.

We are writing about the activity of strike slip faults in the Ionian basin but the higher influence in our proposed model in the four studied Islands is from Kefalonia transform fault.

• line 112: rewrite as: Seismic data [26] suggest that normal faults,...

Done

- line 120: In Figure 2, insert the names mentioned in the text: Paxoi Anticline, Paliki Peninsula, Argostoli Thrust. Furthermore, Figure 2 does not show any dimensional scale, neither horizontal nor vertical. Finally, Figure 2 does not report any description of the tectonic-stratigraphic units involved in the deformation. Authors are requested to update the figure accordingly.

We constructed geological and geomorphological maps from each studied Island to show the tectonic activity and the anticlines and much more details which were necessary to contribute to this paper and the stratigraphic columns from Ionia basin and Apulian platform margins as well. We believe that with this material the manuscript has improved. Moreover, dimensional scale in figure 2 has been added.

 

• line 123: Figure 3 does not show any dimensional scale, neither horizontal nor vertical. Finally, Figure 3 does not report any description of the tectonic- stratigraphic units involved in the deformation. Authors are requested to update the figure accordingly.

This model is published in the reference [37] Bourli, N.; Iliopoulos, G.; Zelilidis, A. Reassessing Depositional Conditions of the Pre-Apulian Zone Based on Synsedimentary Deformation Structures during Upper Paleocene to Lower Miocene Carbonate Sedimentation, from Paxoi and Anti-Paxoi Islands, Northwestern End of Greece. Minerals 2022, 12, 201, so there are no changes in the model, as it represents a schematic, not in scale, evolutionary model.

 

• lines 143, 145, 148, 150, 154, 158, 173, 187, 188: write KSSF instead of KTF.

Done.

 

• line 153: rewrite the sentence as: ... the margins of the Apulian platform, restricted or protected from the KSFF, were ..

Done.

• line 168: delete showed.

Done

• line 171: write The type of tectonic ..

Done.

• line 174: write Parameters such as ... (deleting the commas).

Done.

 

• line 177: In Figure 4, you need to write APM instead of AM. Furthermore, Figure 4 does not report any description of the tectonic stratigraphic units involved in the deformation, including the Triassic evaporites in particular. Authors are requested to update the figure accordingly.

The acronym changed to APM.

The figure 4 is a schematic model and it focuses on the formation of the Ionian basin, Apulian platform margins and Apulian platform in the Ionian Sea because of the tectonic activity.

• line 179: In the legend on Figure 4, please add the acronym APM after Apulian Platform margins.
  Done

 

• line 183: delete aerial (?!).

Done

 

• line 225-226: please separate the reference number 8 from the following (Arthaud et , 1980) and renumber all subsequent references accordingly.

Done

• line 267-269: number the last reference (Bourli et , 2022).

Done

 

References not cited in the manuscript

 

Hudec, M.R.; Jackson, M.P.A. Terra infirma: Understanding salt tectonics. Earth-Science Reviews 2007, 82, 1-28. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.01.001.

Jackson, M.P.A.; Hudec, M.R. Salt Tectonics. Principles and Practice. Cambridge University Press 2017, Cambridge, UK, ISBN 978-1-107-01331-5.

 

Mauffret, A. The Northwestern (Maghreb) boundary of the Nubia (Africa) Plate. Tectonophysics 2006, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2006.09.007.

The first two references have been added in relation with the new paragraph for salt tectonics.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Avraam Zelilidis, Professor

University of Patras, Department of Geology

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article by Zelilidis et al. provides insights into the complex tectonic processes shaping the tectonic active region of the Ionian Islands. The Ionian Islands lie at the boundary between the Ionian Basin and the Apulian Platform, an area marked by significant tectonic activity. The region's evolution has been influenced by the transition from an extensional to a compressional regime, particularly from the Late Jurassic to the Pleistocene. The study focuses on the tectonic inversion, where areas previously experiencing subsidence due to extension are uplifted due to compression. This process involves the reactivation of pre-existing normal faults into thrust faults, significantly impacting the region's structural geology. The research relies on fieldwork, previously published data and geotectonic cross-sections, aiming to enhance the understanding of the tectonic processes.

The identification and description of key structural features, such as anticlines, nappes, and foreland basins, are well articulated.

Figure 1 is very poor quality and the writing is not readable - useless in this form.

While the impact of major faults is discussed, the interaction between different fault systems and their cumulative effect on the region's geology could be explored in more detail. The active tectonics of the region and its present-day kinetics could be analysed in relation with existing crustal movements studies, i.e., the local and regional GPS/GNSS horizontal & vertical velocities (e.g., Sakkas et al., 2022 - Ground Deformation Study of the Ionian Islands (W. Greece) Based on Continuous GNSS Measurements, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052331) .

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are submitting to Geosciences Special Issues “Advanced Studies in Structural Geology: The Role of the Tectonics on Applied Geology Aspects” the revised manuscript entitled: Tectonic inversion and deformation differences in the transition from Ionian Basin to Apulian platform: the example from Ionian Islands, Greece, by Avraam Zelilidis, Nicolina Bourli, Elena Zoumpouli, and Angelos G. Maravelis.

 

We accepted the comments, and we improved the manuscript.
Five figures have been added to the manuscript such as geological and geomorphological maps from each studied Island and lithostratigraphic columns from Ionian basin and Apulian platform margins.

We believe that these additions were necessary as they contributed significantly to the comprehending and improvement of the text.

 

In detail:

The article by Zelilidis et al. provides insights into the complex tectonic processes shaping the tectonic active region of the Ionian Islands. The Ionian Islands lie at the boundary between the Ionian Basin and the Apulian Platform, an area marked by significant tectonic activity. The region's evolution has been influenced by the transition from an extensional to a compressional regime, particularly from the Late Jurassic to the Pleistocene. The study focuses on the tectonic inversion, where areas previously experiencing subsidence due to extension are uplifted due to compression. This process involves the reactivation of pre-existing normal faults into thrust faults, significantly impacting the region's structural geology. The research relies on fieldwork, previously published data and geotectonic cross-sections, aiming to enhance the understanding of the tectonic processes.

The identification and description of key structural features, such as anticlines, nappes, and foreland basins, are well articulated.

Figure 1 is very poor quality and the writing is not readable - useless in this form.
Done, improved figure added.

While the impact of major faults is discussed, the interaction between different fault systems and their cumulative effect on the region's geology could be explored in more detail. The active tectonics of the region and its present-day kinetics could be analysed in relation with existing crustal movements studies, i.e., the local and regional GPS/GNSS horizontal & vertical velocities (e.g., Sakkas et al., 2022 - Ground Deformation Study of the Ionian Islands (W. Greece) Based on Continuous GNSS Measurements, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052331).
We added the reference [15 (Sakkas, V.; Kapetanidis, V.; Kaviris, G.; Spingos, I.; Mavroulid, S.; Diakakis, M.; Alexopoulos J.D.; Kazantzidou-Firtinidou, D.; Kassaras, I.; Didalos, S.; Vassilakis, E.; Kotsi, E.; Tselentis, G.; Lekkas, E.; Voulgaris, N. Seismological and Ground Deformation Study of the Ionian Islands (W. Greece) during 2014-2018, a period of Intense Seismic Activity  Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(5), 2331; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052331)] in Introduction and Geological setting chapters.
As we believe and propose in our model, the Kefalonia Transform Fault has a major influence in the inverted evolutionary development but without reporting or working with its kinematic.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Avraam Zelilidis, Professor

University of Patras, Department of Geology

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this MS is to present a structural model of the tectonic evolution of the Ionian basin and Apulian platform margins, from Late Jurassic to Pleistocene. The idea is good and has certain significance. However, the methods and means are slightly superficiality, there is not enough data support, and the map expression is not accurate enough. It is necessary to discuss the problem with evidence and establish a structural model which supported by chronological data instead of relying on subjective inference.

1. Figure 1 is not clearly.

2. Try not to use more than five Key words，For example, Apulian Platform and Apulian Platform Margins are somewhat repetitive.

3. Figure 2 is not canonical, with no scale, elevation, orientation, and fault occurrence. Moreover, the font size in the figure is very inconsistent, and the lines are rigid. Figure 3 presents the same problem.

4.Line 140-line 142, ’a high angle anticline was formed in both cases (Paxoi Anticline – PA), with up to 200 m altitude, and Vrachionas Anticline (VA), with up to 550 m altitude, in Zakynthos Island).’ However, Angle and elevation are not indicated in Figure 2.

5. There is no detailed introduction of working methods in Methods part, such as how to obtain the profile data. The key data is also not listed, only two non-standard sketches (Fig.1 & Fig.2). The geological time of tectonic activity also does not give clear chronological data.

6. The MS shows that there are 29 references, but there are only 28 pieces in the reference part, and the formatted of last one is als incorrectly. The names format in documents 1 and 3 are incorrectly formatted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are submitting to Geosciences Special Issues “Advanced Studies in Structural Geology: The Role of the Tectonics on Applied Geology Aspects” the revised manuscript entitled: Tectonic inversion and deformation differences in the transition from Ionian Basin to Apulian platform: the example from Ionian Islands, Greece, by Avraam Zelilidis, Nicolina Bourli, Elena Zoumpouli, and Angelos G. Maravelis.

 

We accepted the comments, and we improved the manuscript.
Five figures have been added to the manuscript such as geological and geomorphological maps from each studied Island and lithostratigraphic columns from Ionian basin and Apulian platform margins.

We believe that these additions were necessary as they contributed significantly to the comprehending and improvement of the text.

 

 

In detail:

The aim of this MS is to present a structural model of the tectonic evolution of the Ionian basin and Apulian platform margins, from Late Jurassic to Pleistocene. The idea is good and has certain significance. However, the methods and means are slightly superficiality, there is not enough data support, and the map expression is not accurate enough. It is necessary to discuss the problem with evidence and establish a structural model which supported by chronological data instead of relying on subjective inference.

1. Figure 1 is not clearly.
   Improved figure added.
2. Try not to use more than five Key words，For example, Apulian Platform and Apulian Platform Margins are somewhat repetitive.
   Apulian platform margins was deleted from keywords but Apulian platform and Apulian platform margins provide different depositional conditions. So, the meaning is different.
3. Figure 2 is not canonical, with no scale, elevation, orientation, and fault occurrence. Moreover, the font size in the figure is very inconsistent, and the lines are rigid. Figure 3 presents the same problem.
   Improved figure 2 by adding dimension scale, and figure 3 is published in the reference [37 Bourli, N.; Iliopoulos, G.; Zelilidis, A. Reassessing Depositional Conditions of the Pre-Apulian Zone Based on Synsedimentary Deformation Structures during Upper Paleocene to Lower Miocene Carbonate Sedimentation, from Paxoi and Anti-Paxoi Is-lands, Northwestern End of Greece. Minerals 2022, 12, 201].
4. Line 140 - line 142, ’a high angle anticline was formed in both cases (Paxoi Anticline – PA), with up to 200 m altitude, and Vrachionas Anticline (VA), with up to 550 m altitude, in Zakynthos Island).’ However, Angle and elevation are not indicated in Figure 2.
   New figures 2-5 have been added from each studied island showing the anticlines, the tectonic activity and details that are necessary.
5. There is no detailed introduction of working methods in Methods part, such as how to obtain the profile data. The key data is also not listed, only two non-standard sketches (Fig.1 & Fig.2). The geological time of tectonic activity also does not give clear chronological data.
   New chapter Material and Methods has been added .
6. The MS shows that there are 29 references, but there are only 28 pieces in the reference part, and the formatted of last one is als incorrectly. The names format in documents 1 and 3 are incorrectly formatted.
   Done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Satisfied with the manuscript in its current form - I believe it is ready for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We did some improvements in this revised manuscript in material and methods chapter.

 

Yours sincerely,

Avraam Zelilidis, Professor

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS has made a lot of improvements, especially in the map quality, obviously improved, but there are still some problems need to be modified.

1.Line 17, what is ‘KTF’？Try not to use acronyms in  abstract, especially when they first appear.

2.I still think keywords are a little too much, I think 5 words at most is enough. For example, the words ‘Inversion Tectonic; Thrust faults; Kefalonia tranform fault’, these words have similar meanings.

3.Line64, ’ rif tbasins’? rift basin?  Line 71, ‘NNW–SSSE’? what is SSSE? Line 79, ‘Kefalonia transform (KTF)’, it is comprehensive or not? Seems to be missing a word ‘fault’.

4.Line 203-205, ’Although from previous published pares the decollement surface was the evaporitic deposits and although these outcropped in the western Greece in the contact with the thrusts internally to the Ionian basin’. This sentence is too long, it is difficult to understand, I suggest rewriting it.

5.Line 213-216, ‘ there are not recognized any thrust faults but according to the synsedimentary deformation structures [37] it seems that the basin flor influenced by the normal faults’ activity internally to the Apulian Platform Margins.’ This sentence also is too long, it is difficult to understand, I suggest rewriting it.

6.Line 308, ‘4. Discussion’? According to the text, this should be the fifth part.

7.The quality of the images has been improved, but the following should be noted in figures 8 and 9: some text sizes in the images are still too large.

8.There is a problem that needs to be reminded. I think the content of part 2(Geological setting), 3 (Material and methods) and 4 (Results) of the MS needs to be adjusted, and some content in part 2 and part 3 can be adjusted to the fourth part. Or, this study does not involves a specific research method, the content of Part 3 can be broken down into the second or fourth part. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments.

In detail:

The MS has made a lot of improvements, especially in the map quality, obviously improved, but there are still some problems need to be modified.

Done

1.Line 17, what is ‘KTF’？Try not to use acronyms in  abstract, especially when they first appear.

Done

2.I still think keywords are a little too much, I think 5 words at most is enough. For example, the words ‘Inversion Tectonic; Thrust faults; Kefalonia tranform fault’, these words have similar meanings.

Done

3.Line64, ’ rif tbasins’? rift basin?  Line 71, ‘NNW–SSSE’? what is SSSE? Line 79, ‘Kefalonia transform (KTF)’, it is comprehensive or not? Seems to be missing a word ‘fault’.

Done

4.Line 203-205, ’Although from previous published pares the decollement surface was the evaporitic deposits and although these outcropped in the western Greece in the contact with the thrusts internally to the Ionian basin’. This sentence is too long, it is difficult to understand, I suggest rewriting it.

Done

5.Line 213-216, ‘ there are not recognized any thrust faults but according to the synsedimentary deformation structures [37] it seems that the basin flor influenced by the normal faults’ activity internally to the Apulian Platform Margins.’ This sentence also is too long, it is difficult to understand, I suggest rewriting it.

Done

6.Line 308, ‘4. Discussion’? According to the text, this should be the fifth part.

Done

7.The quality of the images has been improved, but the following should be noted in figures 8 and 9: some text sizes in the images are still too large.

To be improved

8.There is a problem that needs to be reminded. I think the content of part 2(Geological setting), 3 (Material and methods) and 4 (Results) of the MS needs to be adjusted, and some content in part 2 and part 3 can be adjusted to the fourth part. Or, this study does not involves a specific research method, the content of Part 3 can be broken down into the second or fourth part.

Done. Only a small part remained on Material and methods and the rest moved to the chapter of Results, with connection to the existing text.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

Avraam Zelilidis, Professor