text:
Special issue: Tools, data and models for 3-D seismotectonics: Italy as a...
Research article 19 May 2021
Research article | 19 May 2021
Application of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) fabrics to determine the kinematics of active tectonics: examples from the Betic Cordillera, Spain, and the Northern Apennines, Italy
Application of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) fabrics to determine the kinematics of active tectonics: examples from the Betic Cordillera, Spain, and the Northern Apennines, Italy Application of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) fabrics to determine the kinematics... David J. Anastasio et al.
David J. Anastasio1, Frank J. Pazzaglia1, Josep M. Parés2, Kenneth P. Kodama1, Claudio Berti3, James A. Fisher1, Alessandro Montanari4, and Lorraine K. Carnes5 David J. Anastasio et al. David J. Anastasio1, Frank J. Pazzaglia1, Josep M. Parés2, Kenneth P. Kodama1, Claudio Berti3, James A. Fisher1, Alessandro Montanari4, and Lorraine K. Carnes5
1Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA
2Geochronology, Centro Nacional de Investigación de la Evolución Humana (CENIEH) Burgos, Burgos, 09002, Spain
3Idaho Geological Survey, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
4Osservatorio Geologico di Coldigioco, Apiro, Macerata, 62021, Italy
5Geological Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
Correspondence: David J. Anastasio (dja2@lehigh.edu)
Hide author details
Received: 29 Oct 2020 – Discussion started: 20 Jan 2021 – Revised: 23 Mar 2021 – Accepted: 07 Apr 2021 – Published: 19 May 2021
The anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) technique provides an effective way to measure fabrics and, in the process, interpret the kinematics of actively deforming orogens. We collected rock fabric data of alluvial fan sediments surrounding the Sierra Nevada massif, Spain, and a broader range of Cenozoic sediments and rocks across the Northern Apennine foreland, Italy, to explore the deformation fabrics that contribute to the ongoing discussions of orogenic kinematics. The Sierra Nevada is a regional massif in the hinterland of the Betic Cordillera. We recovered nearly identical kinematics regardless of specimen magnetic mineralogy, structural position, crustal depth, or time. The principal elongation axes are NE–SW in agreement with mineral lineations, regional GPS geodesy, and seismicity results. The axes trends are consistent with the convergence history of the Africa–Eurasia plate boundary. In Italy, we measured AMS fabrics of specimens collected along a NE–SW corridor spanning the transition from crustal shortening to extension in the Northern Apennines. Samples have AMS fabrics compatible only with shortening in the Apennine wedge and have locked in penetrative contractional fabrics, even for those samples that were translated into the actively extending domain. In both regions, we found that specimens have a low degree of anisotropy and oblate susceptibility ellipsoids that are consistent with tectonic deformation superposed on compaction fabrics. Collectively, these studies demonstrate the novel ways that AMS can be combined with structural, seismic, and GPS geodetic data to resolve orogenic kinematics in space and time.
Download & links
Article (PDF, 13298 KB)
Article (13298 KB)
How to cite.
Anastasio, D. J., Pazzaglia, F. J., Parés, J. M., Kodama, K. P., Berti, C., Fisher, J. A., Montanari, A., and Carnes, L. K.: Application of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) fabrics to determine the kinematics of active tectonics: examples from the Betic Cordillera, Spain, and the Northern Apennines, Italy, Solid Earth, 12, 1125–1142, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-1125-2021, 2021.
1 Introduction
A number of circum-Mediterranean orogens are associated with rapid slab rollback, resulting in paired compressional and extensional domains in the orogenic wedge of the retreating upper plate (Elter, 1975; Carminati and Doglioni, 2012). Examples include the Calabria Arc–Tyrrhenian Sea (Beccaluva et al., 1985; Milia et al., 2009), the Hellenic Arc–Aegean Sea (Le Pichon and Angelier, 1979; Papazachos et al., 2000), and the Gibraltar Arc–Alboran Sea (Lonergan and White, 1997; Platt et al., 2006; Fernández-Ibáñez and Soto, 2008). Along these tectonic boundaries, the temporal and spatial relationship between thrust belt contraction, wedge-top basin evolution, hinterland extension, and orogenic uplift are the subjects of continuing controversy.
Finite and incremental strain data provide deformation history and fabric distribution information for kinematic studies of folds, faults, and orogens (e.g., Ramsay and Huber, 1984; Fagereng and Biggs, 2018). However, in orogenic forelands where deformation occurs at shallow depths and low temperatures, ductile penetrative deformation features may be absent and brittle structures may be sparse. Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) results offers an alternative proxy for grain-preferred orientation, and hence rock strain, to determine the tectonic fabric in these orogens where other deformation markers are not available (Borradaile and Jackson, 2004, 2010; Borradaile and Henry, 1997; Averbuch et al., 1992; Parés, 2004). In general, comparative studies from siliciclastic rocks show good agreement between both the relative magnitude and orientation of penetrative rock strain determined by traditional geometric methods and AMS principal axes; however, in specimens dominated by diamagnetic mineral abundance, the AMS axes' orientation, and not necessarily their magnitude, correlates to the rock strain (e.g., Latta and Anastasio, 2007; Burmeister et al., 2009). In this paper, we show how AMS can extend the temporal reach of GPS geodesy back in time in orogenic studies of the Betic Cordillera, Spain, and in the Northern Apennines, Italy (e.g., Sagnotti et al., 1998; Mattei et al., 2004; Fig. 1).
Figure 1Topography and bathymetry of the western Mediterranean showing (a) the Betic orogen, southern Spain, and (b) the Northern Apennine mountains, Italy. Elevation data are from General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO) 30 s data (https://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gridded_bathymetry_data/, last access: 8 May 2021).
2 Kinematic studies for active tectonic research
Sedimentary rocks acquire a primary depositional fabric, which is bedding parallel. It is measurable with the AMS technique and is further enhanced and modified during burial, compaction, and water loss (e.g., Tarling and Hrouda, 1993; Schwehr et al., 2006). Even unconsolidated rocks record a magnetic fabric that can potentially provide a kinematic record (Mattei et al., 1997; Porreca and Mattei, 2012). The sensitivity of AMS allows its use as a paleogeodetic tool in tectonic studies. Kinematics allow for an assessment of rheology and strain history that are necessary prerequisites for understanding geodynamics, incrementally balancing cross sections, or in paleogeographic reconstructions. We sampled both consolidated sedimentary rocks and unconsolidated sediments in the Betic Cordillera, Spain, and northeastern Apennine ranges, Italy, for AMS analysis. The Betics field sampling was designed to test AMS recovery from unburied and unconsolidated sediments around the Sierra Nevada massif. Here, oriented samples were collected from sites around the Sierra Nevada massif in Plio-Pleistocene terrestrial, siliciclastic deposits (Table A1 in Appendix). The Apennines field sampling was designed to measure the rotation of strain across the foreland as sampling site passes from the actively shortening part of the orogenic wedge near the trench to the actively extending regime further to the southwest. Here, oriented samples were collected from sites along a NE–SW-oriented corridor inclusive of Cenozoic marine and fluvial siliciclastics, marls, and carbonate rocks, and unconsolidated Pleistocene fluvial sediments (Table A1).
3 The AMS method
The AMS ellipsoid is defined by the principal axes (k1 – maximum, k2 – intermediate, k3 – minimum) of a specimen. It can be represented by a second-rank tensor that characterizes a material's magnetization response to an applied magnetic field (e.g., Borradaile and Tarling, 1981; Tarling and Hrouda, 1993). The orientation and relative length of the principal anisotropy axes of a specimen are controlled by the preferred alignment of the anisotropy axes of the individual magnetic particles in the specimen and the degree of the individual particle's anisotropy. The anisotropy of individual magnetic grains is controlled by their crystallography and grain shape (Tarling and Hrouda, 1993). For magnetite grains, the anisotropy is controlled by grain shape, whereas for hematite and phyllosilicate particles the anisotropy can be controlled by a grain's crystallography, which, in turn, controls their shape. This does not preclude the possibility of the mutual orientation of different particles (e.g., Housen et al., 1993; Weil and Yonkee, 2009) or the preferential alignment of iron-bearing inclusions within the particles (e.g., Biedermann, 2018; Borradaile and Werner, 1994; Borradaile and Lagroix, 2000; Martín-Hernandez and Hirt, 2003; Parés and van der Pluijm, 2002) controlling the AMS fabric.
Natural processes such as current deposition, lithification, and tectonic deformation all contribute to a specimen's AMS. In deformed rocks, it was shown that the principal susceptibility axis (k1) orientation is typically parallel to the strain long axis and orthogonal to the tectonic shortening direction, whereas the shortest axis (k3) is orthogonal to bedding in orientation (e.g., Kligfield et al., 1981; Hrouda, 1982), regardless of whether the individual particle anisotropy is controlled by crystallography or shape.
The sedimentary rocks and deposits in this study contain enough phyllosilicate minerals to be excellent specimens for AMS studies because of the presence of oblate mineral grains which adjust readily to deposition, lithification, and any subsequent deformation. As grains reorient in response to depositional or tectonic processes, the magnetic fabric will continuously adjust (Parés and van der Pluijm, 2002). Deposition from currents in alluvial fans or rivers like the examples discussed here can cause preferred grain alignment. Because the intermediate and maximum AMS axes of platy grains, such as phyllosilicates, are nearly equal in magnitude, they will be randomly oriented within the bedding plane, with the minimum axes orthogonal to bedding. In mudstones and fine-grained sandstones, where both paramagnetism and ferromagnetism contributions were quantified, paramagnetic mineral grains typically dominate the AMS signal (e.g., Martín-Hernández and Hirt, 2001) because of the shape anisotropy of clay minerals, although very fine magnetic particles attached to the clay fabric might also contribute (Kodama and Sun, 1992). Clustering of k1 axes (magnetic lineation) under progressive deformation has been observed in a number of studies and is occasionally accompanied by a girdle containing k3 and k2 axes. This particular axes distribution is thought to be the first piece of evidence for layer parallel shortening in sedimentary rocks (Kissel et al., 1986; Sagnotti and Speranza, 1993; Parés and Dinarès, 1993; Sagnotti et al., 1994; Parés et al., 1999) in sequences of low to moderately deformed mudstones. Borradaile (1988) had already described that the intersection of two competing fabrics (e.g., bedding and layer parallel shortening) will control the orientation of the k1 direction, producing an intersection lineation or magnetic lineation. The concept of magnetic lineation as a result of an assemblage of clay minerals (platelets) was originally brought up by Henry (1997), who referred to it as the "zone axis of two planar objects", a concept that was reviewed by Parés and van der Pluijm (2002).
4 Example I: Sierra Nevada massif, Spain
4.1 Geologic setting of the Sierra Nevada massif
The Sierra Nevada massif is part of the Betic Cordillera–Rif–Tell orogens that extend along the European–African plate boundary from the southern Iberian Peninsula to northern Africa. These orogens were formed by slab rollback and western migration of the Gibraltar Arc throughout the Neogene (Rosenbaum et al., 2002). Coincident with the translation of the arc, the upper plate experienced shortening, the growth of doubly vergent thrust belts, crustal thickening, and rock uplift (Duggen et al., 2003; Soto et al., 2008; Platt et al., 2013). In the Betics, contraction across the plate boundary was initially directed northward (Sanz De Galdeano, 1990; Lonergan, 1993; Platt et al., 2013). As the contraction continued into the foreland during the late Miocene, it slowed and progressively rotated to the northwest into its present orientation (Mazzoli and Helman, 1994; Rosenbaum et al., 2002). Active tectonics in the Betic Cordillera today is dominated by distributed NW–SE convergence of 4–6 mm yr−1 (Fernández-Ibanez et al., 2007; Koulali et al., 2011; Gutscher et al., 2012; Mancilla et al., 2013) and is accommodated in part on NW–SE-trending normal faults (Martínez- Martínez et al., 2006; Stich et al., 2006; Fernández-Ibáñez and Soto, 2008; Giaconia et al., 2014, 2015; Fig. 2).
Figure 2Geodetic, paleogeodetic, and earthquake focal mechanism data from southern Spain. Generalized geology (from Azañon et al., 2015), focal mechanism solutions for normal faults (from Mancilla et al, 2013; earthquake locations from International Seismological Centre catalogue, http://www.ics.ac.uk/, last access: 8 May 2021), mineral lineations (short red lines) (from Martínez-Martínez et al., 2002), results from 10 years of observed velocity GPS permanent (black arrows, with uncertainties) (from Gutscher et al., 2012), and campaign (yellow arrows and uncertainties) (from Koulali et al., 2011) stations in an African (Nubian) fixed reference frame. SN indicates the Sierra Nevada. Bathymetry color depths are as in Fig. 1. Elevation data are from the 30 m NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) combined image data set 2014, distributed by NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC (https://doi.org/10.5067/MEaSUREs/SRTM/SRTMIMGM.003).
The Sierra Nevada massif is a doubly plunging, actively uplifting (Azañón et al., 2015) elongate dome, characterized by medium to low-grade metamorphic rocks stacked in north-verging thrust sheets (Martínez-Martínez et al., 2002). Previous interpretations are that the Sierra Nevada dome was uplifted following top-to-west extension and isostatic rebound after thrust belt formation (Martínez-Martínez et al., 2006). Alternatively, as many culminations exist in orogenic hinterlands, the massif could have been uplifted during contractional or transpressive strain (e.g., Bernini, 1990; Mitra et al., 1997).
To resolve whether the uplift of the Sierra Nevada dome was the result of extensional exhumation or a compressional orogenic culmination, we collected rock fabric (AMS) data in Plio-Pleistocene deposits around the massif to explore the presence of penetrative tectonic fabrics that can contribute additional constraints to the kinematics of dome emplacement. We focused sampling on unburied alluvial fan deposits in Neogene basins that surround the core of the structure (Fig. 3).
Figure 3Simplified geologic map showing sample sites around the Sierra Nevada massif, southern Spain. Lithostructural map of the study area (modified from Azañon et al., 2015). Nevado-Filábride Complex: (1) Ragua unit, (2) and (3) Calar Alto unit, Paleozoic and Permo-Triassic rocks, respectively, and (4) Bédar-Macael unit. Alpujárride Complex: (5) Lújar-Gádor unit and (6) upper Alpujárride units. Malaguide Complex: (7) undifferentiated units. Neogene sediments: (8) Miocene and (9) Pliocene to Quaternary. (10) Low-angle inactive normal fault, (11) high-angle normal fault, (12) high-angle normal fault (undifferentiated), (13) strike-slip fault, (14) anticline, and (15) syncline. Gdb is the Guadix Basin and Grb is the Granada Basin. Lower hemisphere stereographic projection of AMS determined principal axes: k1 axes are indicated by red squares, k2 by green triangles, and k3 by blue circles. Bedding orientation shown along with axes' orientation uncertainties. Elevation data are from the 30 m NASA SRTM JPL combined image data set 2014, distributed by NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC (https://doi.org/10.5067/MEaSUREs/SRTM/SRTMIMGM.003).
4.2 Methods for Example I
We collected samples from six sites distributed around Sierra Nevada, from all structural positions, around the massif in unburied Plio-Pleistocene fan deposits that range from poorly cemented to unconsolidated (Sanz de Galdeano and Vera, 1992; Table A1; Fig. 3). The ages of the deposits sampled were determined from published geologic maps (IGME-1:50 000 scale) and bridged the temporal gap between the late Miocene age metamorphic fabrics and the present-day deformation field recorded by GPS geodesy and recent seismicity. At each site, three oriented samples were collected as independent blocks. Before removal from the outcrop, most blocks were hardened with a diluted (∼ 50 %) aqueous solution of sodium silicate (Fig. 4). In the laboratory, two to three oriented cubes (8 cm3) were cut from each block using non-magnetic Teflon knives and enclosed in standard cubic paleomagnetic boxes. The anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) was determined with an Agico KLY-3S Kappabridge at Lehigh University. To determine magnetic mineralogy, a heating stage under the presence of an argon atmosphere and a cold stage accessory to the Kappabridge were used.
Figure 4Examples of specimen collection from poorly cemented samples. (a) A sampling surface is carved in a massive sandstone of the Upper Miocene Laga Fm., Northern Apennines. (b) The same is done on a subhorizontal layer of a poorly cemented, fine calcareous sandstone from an upper Middle Pleistocene fluvial terrace exposed in a wine cellar at the Geological Observatory of Coldigioco, Northern Apennines. Both samples were hardened with a dilute sodium silicate solution. Three or four oriented blocks were collected from each sampling site. Samples were oriented with a Brunton compass and located with a handheld GPS receiver, labeled, and photographed.
4.3 Results for Example I
Results from heating and cooling experiments show a complicated magnetic mineralogy composed of nearly 100 % ferromagnetic (magnetite or hematite) to nearly 100 % paramagnetic mineralogy (clays and iron-rich micas; Fig. 5). Since the kinematic interpretation of each of the specimen is the same regardless of magnetic mineralogy, the details of each specimen are not important for subsequent analysis. There is no correlation between the bulk magnetic susceptibility (km) and the anisotropy of the magnetic ellipsoid (Pj), so a comparison of the principal axis of susceptibility across the various structural positions around the Sierra Nevada massif specimens can provide useful kinematic information (Fig. 6a). Site 6 has a much higher magnetic susceptibility than the other sites because of possible secondary sulfide minerals at the site indicated by the heating and cooling behavior of the MS vs. T experiments.
Figure 5Magnetic mineralogy of Sierra Nevada specimens. (a, b) Low temperature (MS vs. T) measured on a KLY-3S Kappabridge at Lehigh University. Data are in red and paramagnetic modeling in green, indicating the proportion of the magnetic susceptibility carried by paramagnetic grains. Results from all measurements indicate that the magnetic susceptibility of the Spanish samples varies from being dominated by paramagnetic to ferromagnetic mineral grains. Irrespective of whether the greatest magnetic lineation, k1, is controlled by grain shape of crystallography, the kinematic interpretation is the same. (c, d) High temperature (MS vs. T) measurements showing heating from room temperature (20 ∘C) to 700 ∘C and subsequent cooling back to room temperature. All four plots show evidence of the ferromagnetic mineral magnetite (Curie temperature of 580 ∘C). A lower temperature phase is indicated at Site 3, possibly maghemite. Site 6 shows the formation of additional magnetite during heating because of the much stronger susceptibility upon cooling. Heating curves are in red and cooling curves in blue.
Figure 6(a) Plot of mean susceptibility (Km) with respect to ellipsoid shape (T) for Sierra Nevada samples. Oblate shapes are positive T, whereas prolate shapes are negative T. Most of the specimens have oblate AMS ellipsoid shapes. The specimens are color coded by site and consistent with Fig. 3. The lack of correlation between ellipsoid shape and susceptibility strengthen the conclusions based on the site comparisons we present here. (b) Jelinek diagram of Sierra Nevada specimens colored by site and consistent with Fig. 3 colors. All AMS measurement have a low anisotropy (less than 12 % Pj) and nearly all specimens are oblate (T>0). T and Pj are calculated as follows: if n1=ln (t1), n2=ln (t2), n3=ln (t3), where t1, t2, and t3 are the eigenvalues, then T=(2n2-n1-n3)/(n1-n3) and P′=exp((2[(n1-nmean)2+(n2-nmean)2+(n3-nmean)2])) and nmean=(n1+n2+n3)/3 (Jelinek, 1981).
Nearly all AMS ellipsoids are characterized by a low anisotropy degree (Pj) and oblate ellipsoid shape (T) (Jelinek, 1981; Fig. 6b). The AMS axes' determinations record nearly the same axis orientations. At all sites around the Sierra Nevada, the minimum principal axes, k3, are nearly orthogonal to bedding. The principal elongation axes means are preferentially oriented NNE–SSW to NE–SW (Fig. 3). The orientation of the site-mean magnetic susceptibility axes, k1, is horizontal or very shallowly plunging to the NE or SW (Fig. 3). In general, k1 and k2 are in or near the bedding plane of the specimens, and k2 and k3 do not form a girdle pattern in this principle plane.
4.4 Discussion of Example I
The AMS principal axes show a consistency between sites (Fig. 3), so we combine the susceptibility axes' orientation data in Fig. 7. These combined data suggest that during deposition the phyllosilicate grains were oriented with their basal planes parallel or slightly imbricated to the depositional surface. Compaction during dewatering and lithification amplified the initial oblate depositional fabric and was coincident with the formation of the tectonic fabric. Regardless of the magnetic mineralogy of the specimens, a well-clustered minimum susceptibility axis (k3) is present, which we interpret as a compaction fabric in these sedimentary deposits. The possibility of a primary depositional current fabric (imbrication) is unlikely because of an independent paleocurrent study on clast imbrication at Site 3 and Site 4, which shows an eastward rather than westward transport direction during deposition (Carrigan et al., 2018).
Figure 7All Sierra Nevada massif AMS data. Lower hemisphere, stereographic projection of the principal axes of susceptibility orientations for all specimens determined from AMS measurements in tilt-corrected coordinates (Fig. 3). Arrows outside the stereonet periphery are parallel to the mean long axis (k1) orientation. k1 is the maximum axis, k2 is the intermediate axis, and k3 is the minimum axis.
Irrespective of the structural position around the Sierra Nevada massif, all sites show a preferred orientation of k1. The mean principal axis of maximum susceptibility is preferentially oriented at 30–210∘ (Figs. 7 and 8). We interpret this as a tectonic fabric due to the tight clustering of k1 and k2, the relationship between k1 and strike of dipping bedding at sites SN1, SN4, and SN6, and the lack of influence from depositional processes. In specimens dominated by phyllosilicate grains, it is difficult to create a strong lineation by aligning grain crystallographic axes; however, an intersection lineation between slightly rotated clay grains orthogonal to a shortening direction has been observed (Henry, 1997; Cifelli et al., 2004; Parés et al., 2007; Martín-Hermández and Ferré, 2007; Borradaile and Jackson, 2010). The orientation of k1 is consistent with the present-day GPS velocity field, being oriented almost perfectly orthogonal to the direction of convergence of the Betic Cordillera to stable Africa (Nubia; Fig. 2; Gutscher et al., 2012), in good agreement with the mineral lineations recorded in the massif's core (Martínez-Martínez et al., 2002), and the Neogene brittle extensional structures and recent seismicity (Mancilla et al., 2013) in the orogen (Fig. 2). Because of the low strains and the orthogonal relationship between contractional and extensional principal directions, it is not possible to distinguish the uplift processes of the Sierra Nevada massif with our results. The AMS ellipsoid orientations, mineralogic stretching lineation from the core of the Sierra Nevada massif, the nearby GPS velocity field, and recent fault slip all have orientations consistent with the same strain field (Fig. 8). The principal elongation direction is interpreted to have persisted across different structural levels from Miocene time to the present (> 10 Myr). The principal elongation direction, k1, was collected from only young sediments so this fabric must also be young. The AMS fabric points out that the various phases of deformation affecting the Betic Cordillera were nearly coaxial since the Miocene.
Figure 8Kinematic summary of AMS for Example I. Comparison of paleogeodetic methods around the Sierra Nevada massif, Spain, illustrating the validity of AMS determined principal extension direction (k1).
5 Example II: Northern Apennines, Italy
5.1 Geologic setting of the Northern Apennines
The Northern Apennines are an accretionary fold and thrust belt (Bally et al., 1986) where crustal deformation, rock uplift, and topographic growth result from the ongoing subduction of Adria beneath Europe (Picotti and Pazzaglia, 2008; Carminati and Doglioni, 2012). The Apennine orogenic wedge initiated ∼ 30 Ma along the southern flank of the Alps (Le Pichon et al., 1971) and has grown at variable rates through the Neogene dependent on the transfer of mass imbricated from the subducting plate (Picotti and Pazzaglia, 2008). Rapid rollback of Adria with respect to Europe results in retreat and stretching of the upper plate, forming a wide zone of back arc crustal extension. The Apennine wedge started to become emergent ∼ 4 Ma (Picotti and Pazzaglia, 2008), uplifting and exposing paired compressional and extensional deformation fronts near the trench and in the forearc, respectively, with the structural transition near the topographic culmination of the range (D'Agostino et al., 2001; Carminati and Doglioni, 2012). Balanced cross sections for the Apennines (Bally et al., 1986; Hill and Hayward, 1988) indicate ∼ 130 to 150 km of subduction over the 30 Myr history of the wedge, which indicates relatively slow long-term rates at ∼ 4 to 5 km Myr−1 (4–5 mm yr−1), similar to the GPS geodetic rates (Devoti et al., 2008; Caporali et al., 2011; Bennett et al., 2012).
The northeastern Apennines, including the Umbria–Marche target region of this research, exposes Mesozoic–early Cenozoic carbonates and middle–late Cenozoic mixed carbonate–siliciclastic rocks folded and imbricated into northeast-vergent thrust sheets (Porreca et al., 2018, and references therein; Fig. 9). In Marche, these thrust sheets are located with carbonate ridges and have inferred blind thrusts in their cores (Artoni, 2013). Further west in Umbria, the thrust sheets are dissected by both east- and west-dipping high-angle normal faults (Barchi et al., 1998; Fig. 9). Ongoing thrust earthquakes beneath the Po Plain and Adriatic Sea (Pondrelli et al., 2006; Boccaletti et al., 2011) and normal-fault-sense earthquakes beneath the high Apennines (Lavecchia et al., 1994; Doglioni et al., 1999; Ghisetti and Vezzani, 2002; Chiaraluce et al., 2017) speak to concurrent shortening and extension in the wedge.
Figure 9(a) Location map showing the topography, known major faults with black lines, the location of large, historic earthquakes in orange circles (from Boncio et al., 1998), the drainage divide as a red line, and GPS geodetic velocities with uncertainties in red arrows (from Hreinsdóttir and Bennett, 2009) in the Northern Apennines showing our research corridor (gray-shaded box). Elevation data are from the TINITALY 10 m digital elevation model (DEM) (Tarquini et al., 2012). Alto Tiberina fault (ATF), Ancona (A), Apiro (Ap), Arezzo (Ar), Ascoli Piceno (AP), Cagli (C), Camerino (Cm), Cascia (Ca), Fabriano (F), Foligno (Fo), Gola di Frasassi (GdiF), Gubbio (G), Jesi (J), Macerata (M), Norcia (N), Osservatorio Geologico Coldigioco (OGC), Perugia (P), Spoleto (S), Visso (V). (b) Inset regional map showing the plate boundary and location of Fig. 9a. (c) Synthetic cross section of the region in panel (a) projected to the X–X′ line (modified from Chiaraluce et al., 2017). Normal faults are in black, thrust faults in red, top of Permo-Triassic evaporites in blue, and top of carbonates in green. (d) Photo of an exposed bedrock fault scarp from the Umbrian Apennines. Fault scarps are uncommon in most of Marche.
The paired deformation fronts in the Northern Apennines, Italy, are convolved with an enigmatic, but active, east-dipping (towards Adria), 14–15 km deep detachment called the Alto Tiberina fault that projects to the surface west of the Apennine crest (Barchi et al., 1998; Pialli et al., 1998; Boncio et al., 2004; Chiaraluce et al., 1999; Eva et al., 2014; Lavecchia et al., 2016; Fig. 9). This detachment is one of only a handful of low-angle normal faults globally that are demonstrably seismogenic (Hreinsdóttir and Bennett, 2009; Valoroso et al., 2017), apparently in contradiction to frictional fault reactivation theory that predicts that slip on low-angle normal faults as extremely unlikely (reviewed in Collettini, 2011). Most of the destructive seismicity in the high Apennines tends to nucleate on west-dipping high-angle normal faults that are antithetic to and sole into this east-dipping detachment (Galadini and Galli, 2000; Boncio et al., 2004; Roberts and Michetti, 2004). The most destructive seismicity, including the 2016–2017 earthquake sequence, is tightly focused along the highest crest of the Apennines where it is co-located with young, underfilled, extensional basins, high-angle normal faults that rupture the surface (Fig. 9) and geomorphic evidence for an east-marching drainage divide. It is not known if the infrequent but large historic earthquakes east of the divide are indicative of new blind normal faults that have nucleated on the detachment, represent active shortening, or alternatively are responding to a different stress field.
Figure 10(a) Hysteresis curves for representative samples of the studied Apennine range geologic formations (see location in Fig. 10). Paramagnetic susceptibility clearly dominates all the specimens, as revealed by the slope of the loops. (b) Example of a specimen where the paramagnetic contribution has been removed in order to enhance the ferromagnetic contribution (loop in black). (c) Example of a specimen where diamagnetism dominates the total magnetic susceptibility.
Imbricated foredeep and wedge-top basins contain a time-transgressive range of poorly consolidated deposits that span the compressional and extensional regimes. Conceivably, shortening fabrics could be recorded in lithofacies at the base of one of these basins when it was formed and filled in the shortening part of the wedge, only to be superseded by stretching fabrics in overlying lithofacies as the basin was translated westward and into the extending part of the wedge. Adriatic slope transverse rivers (Alvarez, 1999) traverse both the extending and shortening parts of the wedge and contain Pleistocene alluvial deposits representing an AMS geodetic snapshot of the current crustal strains. Published AMS data from the thrust belt show a strike-parallel (NE–SW and horizontal) extension that is perpendicular to compression and shortening directions (Sagnotti, et al., 1998; Caricchi et al., 2016). To confirm these data towards the southeast and to better locate the kinematic transition region between the contracting and extending regions of the overlying Eurasian plate, we sampled AMS data in Oligocene and younger units, including Quaternary deposits in a NE–SW-oriented corridor across the thrust belt (Fig. 9).
5.2 Methods for Example II
Sampling in the Apennines was designed to identify the location of the modern extensional front. Field collection and specimen preparation occurred as in Example I from Spain, with unconsolidated samples being hardened with sodium silicate before or just after orienting and removal from the outcrop (Fig. 4). We collected samples from 17 sites from sedimentary rocks and poorly consolidated sediments from Late Eocene to late Pleistocene age, with a focus on late Miocene–Pliocene argillaceous marine deposits (Table A1). The Italian specimens were prepared and rock magnetic data were acquired in the Archeomagnetism Laboratory at Centro Nacional de Investigación de la Evolución Humana (CENIEH) (Spain). The AMS of the collected specimens was measured on a MFK1-FA Kappabridge (Agico Instruments), a fully automated inductive bridge, at a frequency of 976 Hz and a field of 200 A m−1. Analysis software (Saphyr6, by Agico) creates a complete susceptibility tensor. Rock magnetic measurements included isothermal remanent magnetization (IRM) acquisition experiments up to 1 Tesla and hysteresis curves to determine the relative contribution of ferromagnetism and paramagnetism to the total susceptibility tensor. These experiments were carried out with a vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM; Micromag 3900).
5.3 Results of Example II
Samples from the Apennines have variable magnetic mineralogy and include a wider range of lithologies and ages than the Betics sampling. Samples from sites AP2 and AP7 (Bisciaro Fm.) are dominated by diamagnetic calcite and negative mean susceptibility, which precludes any meaningful analysis of the AMS axes' orientations. At the 1T field, the magnetization was not fully saturated, indicating the presence of hematite in addition to lower coercivity magnetite as the dominant ferromagnetic components (Heller, 1978). Still, the bulk magnetic susceptibility is dominated by paramagnetism, as revealed by the hysteresis curves (Fig. 10). The contribution of paramagnetic grains suggests that the measured magnetic fabric can be used as a proxy for phyllosilicate grains' preferred orientation; therefore, the AMS principal axes are indicators of the orientation of the strain axes' orientation (e.g., Soto et al., 2009).
Representative examples of AMS fabrics are shown in Fig. 11. The mean susceptibility shows no positive correlation with the shape parameter or anisotropy degree (T, Pj; Fig. 12). Similar to the data from Spain, the AMS ellipsoids from the Italian specimens indicate low Pj values, revealing a low degree of grain shape preferred orientation and low strains. The AMS axes' distribution is particularly clear in specimens of the argillaceous and semi-consolidated Pliocene Argille Azzurre Fm. At all sites, k1 axes' orientations are shown as a function of rock formation, as well as the sites at which k3 is perpendicular to bedding (Fig. 13). All interpretable specimens from the Apennine range samples, including the Pleistocene fluvial deposits, generate a site-mean AMS fabric consistent with contraction and shortening in the wedge.
Figure 11Lower hemisphere stereographic projection of representative sites showing representative fabric patterns in Quaternary deposits (a), older rocks in the Apennine foreland (b and c), and older rocks south of the extensional front (d). The orientation of bedding is shown when not horizontal. Closed symbols indicate measured specimens. Open symbols indicate principal axes orientations with uncertainties.
Figure 12(a) Plot of mean susceptibility (Km) with respect to degree of anisotropy (Pj) for the Apennine specimens. The specimens are color coded by site. (b) Jelinek diagram of Apennine specimens, colored by site. All AMS measurements are consistent with low strains (Pj, degree of anisotropy), and nearly all specimens are oblate (T>0).
5.4 Discussion for Example II
The k1 axis orientation is orthogonal to the rock transport and crustal shortening directions, as recorded in GPS geodesy data and seismology (Fig. 9). Irrespective of sample age, we interpret AMS ellipsoids that have the magnetic lineation in a NW–SE orientation as recording contraction, as this is the main trend of the fault traces and strike of bedding and topography (Fig. 13). A few sites do not provide interpretable kinematic results because the axes directions are scattered and suggest inconsistent strain directions. The calcareous marls of the Bisciaro Fm. (AP2, AP7) have a poorly formed AMS fabric. In these specimens, the mean susceptibility is negative and dominated by diamagnetism, most likely calcite. The absence of a compactional fabric in carbonate-dominated specimens (AP2, AP7) likely indicates that these sediments lithified by cementation soon after deposition.
Figure 13Results of AMS analysis in the Northern Apennines over simplified geology from 1:10 000 scale geologic mapping (from Regione Marche and Umbria, http://regione.marche.it, last access: 8 May 2021; http://dati.umbria.it/, last access: 8 May 2021) and topography. Elevation data are from 30 m NASA SRTM JPL combined image data set 2014, distributed by NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC (https://doi.org/10.5067/MEaSUREs/SRTM/SRTMIMGM.003). Extensional earthquake epicenters are compiled from Rovida et al. (2020). The presence of a tectonic fabric was determined by clustering of k1 declinations outside of the expected compaction fabric. Axis certainty represents the percentage of specimens of the total used to calculate a mean k1 vector. Right legend: (1) Holocene fill; (2) first-order Quaternary terrace (Qt1); (3) second-order Quaternary terrace (Qt2); (4) third-order Quaternary terrace (Qt3); (5) Argille Azzurre Fm.; (6) Scaglia Rossa Fm.; (7) Maiolica Fm.; (8) Bisciaro Fm.; (9) thrust fault trace; (10) normal fault trace; (11) Alto Tiberina detachment; (12) drainage divide; (13) large historic but pre-instrument earthquakes (pre-1800) of unknown origin (see Fig. 9).
In general, the distribution of the principal axes of the AMS ellipsoid does not significantly vary with stratigraphic age or structural position. For example, the oldest specimens collected from Eocene–middle Miocene marls and Pliocene siliciclastic rocks (AP6, AP14, AP17) uniformly show AMS fabrics consistent with contractional deformation of the orogenic wedge (Fig. 13), similar to the results of Sagnotti et al. (1998). Most importantly, sites collected from thrust structures that are currently in an extending regime (AP11, AP12, AP13) imply that either the AMS fabric was locked after the original deformation due to the high strain required to rotate grain pairs, or that subsequent extension has not affected the previous AMS fabric (e.g., Larrasoña et al., 2004). The same is true for middle and late Miocene siliciclastic deposits next to the Marche ridge (AP3, AP9), where the current orientations of crustal stresses from fault and earthquake data are ambiguous. Pliocene and Pleistocene samples from near the toe of the orogenic wedge show an orientation consistent with ongoing shortening (AP4, AP5, AP8). Wegmann and Pazzaglia (2009) also report ongoing shortening in this region as evidenced by fluvial terrace folding above the Filottrano thrust, which we cross at the location of AP4.
The kinematic transition zone in central Italy aligns with the topography, the seismicity (Pondrelli et al., 2006), and the GPS geodesy (Bennett et al., 2012; Fig. 9). Our AMS data do not improve on the location of the transition zone because of the lack of samples from Plio-Pleistocene deposits directly northeast of the drainage divide (Fig. 13). Unfortunately, the one Pleistocene river terrace deposit northeast of the divide (AP10) has indeterminate axes. As such, our AMS results are not able to support the idea that there is an apparent rotation of the principal compressive stress between the Adriatic coast and the Marche ridge associated with wedge-scale pore-pressure variations (Peacock et al., 2017). Furthermore, the AMS is unable to determine the stress field responsible for the large historic earthquakes in the region between the drainage divide and the Marche ridge. If earthquakes in the region are related to blind normal faults with tips breaking upsection from the Alto Tiberina detachment (Fig. 9), a possible rationale is that, according to extensional critical wedge theory (Davis et al., 1983), a wedge with a taper greater than some critical value is unable to slide over its basal detachment until sufficient wedge thinning on connecting faults reduces the surface slope and wedge taper below the critical value (Xiao et al., 1991). Suitable deposits do outcrop in this critical region, so additional field work and AMS analyses may shed light on this problem.
6 Conclusions
The AMS technique provides an effective way to identify both modern and paleokinematics from sediments and sedimentary rocks largely independent of the magnetic mineralogy of a specimen. Stratigraphically controlled AMS measurements are a deep-time paleogeodetic technique that can be combined with structural geology, GPS geodesy, and seismic data to collectively describe the kinematics of active orogens and to better understand the nature of seismic hazards. In both the Betic Cordillera (Example I) and Northern Apennines (Example II), weak but well-organized penetrative AMS fabrics were recovered from young unconsolidated and unburied rocks that could not be analyzed with more traditional methods. In the Betic Cordillera, we established a long-term consistency to the strain field from the late Miocene to the present from unburied, young deposits around the Sierra Nevada. For the Northern Apennines, all studied sites, regardless of the sites' stratigraphic age, ubiquitously record NW–SE-oriented k1 axes' orientations, irrespective of structural position. Contractional strains in the most southwest-located samples are likely locked into the rocks and do not record superposed penetrative extension. In any case, the recovered magnetic fabric orientation successfully determined the kinematics of an area near the synorogenic surface in the still-contracting orogen toe region.
Table A1List of specimens.
Download Print Version | Download XLSX
Code availability
The Pmagpy code is available at https://earthref.org/PmagPy/cookbook/ (Magnetics Information Consortium, 2020). PmagPy code was used to analyze and plot AMS data. The Anisoft code is available at https://www.agico.com/text/software/anisoft/anisoft.php (AGICO, 2020).
The datasets used in this paper are available upon request.
DJA, JMP, and CB conceived the Spanish project and completed sampling, sample preparation, measurement, and analyses. DJA and JMP conceived the Italian project. DJA, FJP, AM, and LKC completed the Italian sampling. DJA and JMP prepared the Italian specimens, measured the samples, and analyzed the results. DJA, FJP, JAF, CB, and KPK analyzed results and drafted figures for the manuscript. DJA and FJP wrote the first draft of the manuscript and edited each subsequent draft. JMP, KPK, CB, and AM edited multiple drafts of the manuscript. DJA completed the final edits.
Special issue statement
This article is part of the special issue "Tools, data and models for 3-D seismotectonics: Italy as a key natural laboratory". It is a result of the workshop on "Tools, data and models for 3D seismotectonics: the Italian laboratory over time", Perugia, Italy, 9–10 July 2019.
The authors thank Andrea Rodriguez Rubio, Alondra Jimenez Perez, and Isabel Hernando Alonso of CENIEH for laboratory assistance, and the Association "Le Montagne di San Francesco" for logistical support during the sampling campaign in the Umbria–Marche Apennines. Agico is acknowledged for Anisoft software, and Lisa Tauxe is thanked for PmagPy software (Tauxe et al., 2016) used to analyze the AMS data presented here. David J. Anastasio thanks CENIEH and Josep M. Parés for hosting his academic leave during the fall 2019 semester. We thank Dario Biardello and Ruth Soto for their reviews of the manuscript and the topical editor for the journal, Massimiliano Porreca, for his review.
Review statement
This paper was edited by Massimiliano Porreca and reviewed by Dario Bilardello and Ruth Soto.
Advanced Geoscience Instruments Company (AGICO): Anisoft – Advanced Treatment of Magnetic Anisotropy Data, available at: https://www.agico.com/text/software/anisoft/anisoft.php (last access: 18 May 2021), 2020.
Alvarez, W.: Drainage on evolving fold-trust belts: a study of transverse canyons in the Apennines, Basin Res., 11, 267–284, 1999.
Artoni, A.: The Pliocene-Pleistocne stratigraphic and tectonic evolution of the central sector of the Western Periadriatic Basin of Italy, Mar. Petrol. Geol., 42, 82–106, 2013.
Averbuch, O., Delamotte, D. F., and Kissel, C.: Magnetic fabric as a structural indicator of the deformation path within a fold thrust structure – a test case from the Corbieres (NE Pyrenees, France), J. Struct. Geol., 14, 461–474, 1992.
Azañón, J. M, Galve, J. P., Perez-Pena, J. V., Giaconia, F., Carvajal, R., Booth-Rea, G., Jabaloy, A., Vazquez, M., Azor, A., and Roldan, F. J.: Relief and drainage evolution during the exhumation of the Sierra Nevada (SE Spain): Is denudation keeping pace with uplift?, Tectonophysics, 663, 19–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2015.06.015, 2015.
Bally, A. W., Burbi, L., Cooper, C., and Ghelardoni, R.: Balanced sections and seismic reflection profiles across the central Apennines, Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital., 35, 257–310, 1986.
Barchi, M., De Feyter, A., Magnani, M., Minelli, G., Pialli, G., and Sotera, B.: Extensional tectonics in the Northern Apennines (Italy): evidence from the CROP03 deep seismic reflection line, Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital., 52, 528–538, 1998.
Beccaluva, L., Gabbianelli, G., Lucchini, F., Rossi, P. L., and Savelli, C.: Petrology and K/Ar Ages of volcanics dredged from the Eolian seamounts: Implications for geodynamic evolution of the Southern Tyrrhenian Basin, Earth Pl. Sc. Lett., 74, 187–208, https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(85)90021-4, 1985.
Bennett, R. A., Serpelloni, E., Hreinsdottir, S., Brandon, M. T., Buble, G., Basic, T., Casale, G., Cavaliere, A., Anzidei, M., Marjonovic, M., Minelli, G., Molli, G., and Montanari, A.: Syn-convergent extension observed using the RETREAT GPS network, northern Apennines, Italy, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B04408, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008744, 2012.
Bernini, B. M.: The role of transpression movements in the evolution of Neogene basins of the Betic Cordillera, An Tect, 4 ISSN: 0394-5596, 1990.
Biedermann, A. R.: Magnetic Anisotropy in Single Crystals: A Review, Geosciences, 8, 302, 16 pp., https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8080302, 2018.
Boccaletti, M., Corti, G., and Martelli, L.: Recent and active tectonics of the external zone of the Northern Apennines (Italy), Int. J. Earth Sci., 100, 1331–1348, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-010-0545-y, 2011.
Boncio, P., Lavecchia, G., and Pace, B.: Defining a model of 3D seismogenic sources for Seismic Hazard Assessment applications: the case of central Apennines (Italy), J. Seismol., 8, 407–425, 2004.
Borradaile, G. J.: Magnetic susceptibility,petrofabrics and strain, Tectonophysics, 156, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(88)90279-X, 1988.
Borradaile, G. J. and Henry, B.: Tectonic applications of magnetic susceptibility and its anisotropy, Earth Sci. Rev., 4, 49–93, 1997.
Borradaile, G. J. and Jackson, M.: Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibuility (AMS): magnetic petrofabrics of deformed rocks, in: Magnetic Fabric: Methods and Applications, edited by: Martîn-Hernåndez, F., Lüneburg, C. M. Aubourg, and Jackson, M., Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ., 238, 299–360, 2004.
Borradaile, G. J. and Jackson, M.: Structural geology, petrofabrics and magnetic fabrics (AMS, AARM, AIRM), J. Struct. Geol., 32, 1519–1551, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2009.09.006, 2010.
Borradaile, G. J. and Lagroix, F.: The enhancement of magnetic fabrics un high grade gneiss, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2413–2416, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL008522, 2000.
Borradaile, G. J. and Tarling, D. H.: The influence of deformation mechanisms on magnetic fabrics in weakly deformed rocks, Tectonophysics, 77, 151–168, 1981.
Borradaile, G. J. and Werner, T.: Magnetic anisotropy of some phyllosilicates, Tectonophysics, 225, 223–248, 1994.
Burmeister, K. C., Harrison, M. J., Marshak, S., Ferre, E, C., and Bannister, R. A.: Comparison of Fry strain ellipse and AMS ellipsoid trends to tectonic fabric trends in very low-strain sandstone of the Appalachian fold-thrust belt, J. Struct. Geol., 9, 1028–1038, 2009.
Caporali, A., Barba, S., Carafa, M. M. C., Devoti, R., Pietrantonio, G., and Riguzzi, F.: Static stress drop as determined from geodetic strain rates and statistical seismicity, J. Geophys. Res., 116, B02410, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007671, 2011.
Caricchi, C., Cifelli, F., Kissel, C., Sagnotti, L., and Mattei, M.: Distinct magnetic fabric in weakly deformed sediments from extensional basins and fold-and-thrust structures in the Northern Apennine orogenic belt (Italy), Tectonics, 35, 238–256, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015TC003940, 2016.
Carminati, E. and Doglioni, C.: Alps vs. Apennines: The paradigm of a tectonically asymmetric Earth, Earth Sci. Rev., 112, 67–96, 2012.
Carrigan, J. H., Anastasio, D. J., Berti, C., and Pazzaglia, F. J.: Post-Messinian Drainage Reorganization in an Active Orogen, Betic Cordillera, Spain, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstract. Prog., 50, ISSN 0016-7592, https://doi.org/10.1130/abs/2018AM-322226, 2018.
Chiaraluce, L., Chiarabba, C., Collettini, C., Piccinini, D., and Cocco, M.: Architecture and mechanics of an active low-angle normal fault: Alto Tiberina Fault, northern Apennines, Italy, J. Geophys. Res., 112, B10310, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005015, 1999.
Chiaraluce, L. Barchi, M. R., Carannante, S., Collettini, C., Mirabella, F., Pauselli, C., and Valoroso, L.: The role of rheology, crustal structures and lithology in the seismicity distribution of the northern Apennines, Tectonophysics, 694, 280–291, 2017.
Cifelli, F., Mattei, M., Hirt, A. M., and Günther, A.: The origin of tectonicmfabrics in "undeformed" clays: the early stages of deformation in extensional sedimentary basins, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L09604, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019609, 2004.
Collettini, C.: The mechanical paradox of low-angle normal faults: Current understanding and open questions, Tectonophysics, 510, 253–268, 2011.
D'Agostino, N., Jackson, J. A., Dramis, F., and Funiciello, R.: Interactions between mantle upwelling, drainage evolution and active normal faulting: an example from the central Apennines (Italy), Geophys. J. Int., 147, 475–497, 2001.
Davis, D., Suppe, J., and Dahlen, F. A.: Mechanics of fold-and-thrust belts and accretionary wedges, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 1153–1172, 1983.
Devoti, R., Riguzzi, F., Cuffaro, M., and Doglioni, C.: New GPS constraints on the kinematics of the Apennines subduction, Earth Planet Sc. Lett., 273, 163–174, 2008.
Doglioni, C., Harabaglia, P., Merlini, S., Mongelli, F., Peccerillo, A. T., and Piromallo, C.: Orogens and slabs vs. their direction of subduction, Earth Sci. Rev., 45, 167–208, 1999.
Duggen, S., Hoernle, K., van den Bogaard, P., Rüpke, L., and Morgan, J. P.: Deep roots of the Messinian Salinity Crisis, Nature, 422, 602–606, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01553, 2003.
Elter, P., Giglia, G., Tongiorgi, M., and Trevisan, L.: Tensional and compressional area in the recent (Tortonian to present) evolution of the Northern Apennines, B. Geofis. Teor. Appl., 17, 3–18, 1975.
Eva, E., Solarino, S., and Boncio, P.: HypoDD relocated seismicity in northern Apennines (Italy) preceding the 2013 seismic unrest: seismotectonic implications for the Lunigiana-Garfagnana area, B. Geofis. Teor. Appl., 55, 739–754, 2014.
Fagereng, Å. and Biggs, J.: New perspectives on "geological strain rates" calculated from both naturally deformed and actively deforming rocks, J. Struct. Geol., 125, 100–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.10.004, 2018.
Fernández-Ibáñez, F. and Soto., J. I.: Crustal Rheology and Seismicity in the Gibraltar Arc (western Mediterranean), Tectonics, 27, 18 pp., https://doi.org/10.1029/2007TC002192, 2008.
Fernández-Ibañez, F., Soto, J. I., Zoback, M. D., and Morales, J.: Present-day stress field in the Gibraltar Arc (western Mediterranean), J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 112, B08404, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004683, 2007.
Galadini, F. and Galli, P.: Active tectonics in the central Apennines (Italy) – input data for seismic hazard assessment, Nat. Hazards, 22, 225–270, 2000.
Ghisetti, F. and Vezzani, L.: Normal faulting, transcrustal permeability and seismogenesis in the Apennines (Italy), Tectonophysics, 348, 155–168, 2002.
Giaconia, F., Booth-Rea, G., Martínez-Martínez, J. M., Azañón, J. M., Storti, F., and Artoni, A.: Heterogeneous Extension and the Role of Transfer Faults in the Development of the Southeastern Betic Basins (SE Spain), Tectonics, 33, 2467–89, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014TC003681, 2014.
Giaconia, F., Booth-Rea, G., Ranero, C. R., Gràcia, E., Bartolome, R., Calahorrano, A., Lo Iacono, C., Vendrell, M. G., and Cameselle, A. L.: Compressional tectonic inversion of the Algero-Balearic basin: Latemost Miocene to present oblique convergence at the Palomares margin (Western Mediterranean), Tectonics, 34, 1516–1543, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015TC003861, 2015.
Gutscher, M. A., Dominguez, S., Westbrook, G. K., Le Roy, P., Rosas, F., Duarte, J. C., Terrinha, P., Miranda, J. M., Graindorge, D., Gailler, A., Sallares, V., and Bartolome, R.: The Gibraltar Subduction: A Decade of New Geophysical Data, Tectonophysics, 574/575, 72–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2012.08.038, 2012.
Heller, F.: Rockmagnetic studies of Upper Jurassic limestones from southern Germany, J. Geophys., 44, 525–554, 1978.
Henry, B.: The magnetic zone axis: a new element of magnetic fabric for the interpretation of magnetic lineation, Tectonophysics, 271, 325—331, 1997.
Hill, K. and Hayward, A.: Structural constraints on the Tertiary plate tectonic evolution of Italy, Mar. Petrol. Geol., 5, 2–16, 1988.
Housen, B. A. Richter, C., and van der, Pluijm, B., A.: Composite magnetic anisotropy fabrics: experiments, numerical models, and implications for the quantification of rock fabrics, Tectonophysics, 220, 1–12, 1993.
Hreinsdóttir, S. and Bennett, R. A.: Active aseismic creep on the Alto Tiberina low-angle normal fault, Italy, Geology, 37, 683–686, https://doi.org/10.1130/G30194A.1, 2009
Hrouda, F.: Magnetic Anisotropy of Rocks and Its Application in Geology and Geophysics, Geophys. Surv., 5, 37–82, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01450244, 1982.
Jelinek, V.: Characterization of the magnetic fabric of rocks, Tectonophysics, 79, 63–67, 1981.
Kissel, C., Barrier, E., Laj, C., and Lee, T. Q.: Magnetic fabric in "undeormed" marine clays from compressional zones, Tectonics, 5, 769–781, https://doi.org/10.1029/TC005i005p00769, 1986.
Kligfield, R., Owens, W. H., and Lowrie, W.: Magnetic susceptibility anisotropy, strain and progressive deformation in Permian sediments from the Maritime Alps (France), Earth Pl. Sc. Lett., 55, 181–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-821X(81)90097-2, 1981.
Kodama, K. P. and Sun, W.-W.: Magnetic anisotropy as a correction for compaction-caused paleomagnetic inclination shallowing, Geophys. J. Int., 111, 465–469, 1992.
Koulali, A., Ouazar, D., Tahayt, A., King, R. W., Vernant, P., Reilinger, R. E., McClusky, S., Mourabit, T., Davila, J. M., and Amraoui, N.: New GPS constraints on active deformation along the Africa-Iberia plate boundary, Earth Pl. Sc. Lett., 308, 211–217, 2011.
Larrasoaña, J. C., Pueyo, E. L., and Parés, J. M.: An integrated AMS, structural, paleo- and rock-magnetic study of the Eocene marine marls from the Jaca-Pamplona basin (Pyrenees, N Spain); new insights into the timing of magnetic fabric acquisition in weakly deformed mudrocks, Magnetic Fabric: Methods and Applications, edited by: Martín-Hernández, F., Lüneburg, C. M., Aubourg, C., and Jackson, M., Geol. Soc. Sp. Publ., London, 238, 127–143, 2004.
Latta, D. K. and Anastasio, D. J.: Multiple scales of mechanical stratification and décollement fold kinematics, Sierra Madre Oriental foreland, northeast Mexico, Jof. Struct. Geol., 29, 1241–1255, 2007.
Lavecchia, G., Brozzetti, F., Barchi, M., Menichetti, M., and Keller, J.V.:. Seismotectonic zoning in east-central Italy deduced from an analysis of the Neogene to present deformations and related stress fields, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 106, 1107–1120, 1994.
Lavecchia, G., Adinolfi, G. M., Nardis, R., Ferrarini, F., Cirillo, D., Brozzetti, F., De Matteis, R., Festa, G., and Zollo, A.: Multidisciplinary inferences on a newly recognized active east dipping extensional system in Central Italy, Terra Nova, 29, 77–89, 2016.
Le Pichon, X. and Angelier, J.: The Hellenic arc and trench system: a key to the neotectonic evolution of the eastern Mediterranean area, Tectonophysics, 60, 1–42, 1979.
Le Pichon, X., Pautot, G., Auzende, J. M., and Olivet, J. L.: La Mediterranee occidentale depuis l'oligocene; scheme d'evolution: The western Mediterranean since the Oligocene; evolutionary scheme, Earth Pl. Sc. Lett., 13, 145–152, 1971.
Lonergan, L.: Timing and kinematics of deformation in the Malaguide Complex, internal zone of the Betic Cordillera, southeast Spain, Tectonics, 12, 460–476, https://doi.org/10.1029/92TC02507, 1993.
Lonergan, L. and White, N.: Origin of the Betic-Rif Mountain Belt, Tectonics, 16, 504–22, https://doi.org/10.1029/96TC03937, 1997.
Magnetics Information Consortium: PmagPy Cookbook, available at: https://earthref.org/PmagPy/cookbook/ (last access: 18 May 2021), 2020.
Mancilla, FdL., Stich, D., Berrocoso, M., Martin, R., Morales, J., Fernandez-Ros, A., Paez, R., and Perez-Pena, A.: Delamination in the Betic Range: Deep structure, seismicity, and GPS motion, Geology, 41, 307–310, 2013.
Martín-Hernandez, F. and Hirt, A. M.: Separation of ferrimagnetic and paramagnetic anisotropies using a high-field torsion magnetometer, Tectonophysics, 337, 209-221, 2001.
Martín-Hernandez, F. and Hirt, A. M.: The anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility in biotite, muscovite and chlorite single crystals, Tectonophysics, 367, 13–28, 2003.
Martín-Hernández, F. and Ferré, E. C.: Separation of paramagnetic and ferrimagnetic anisotropies. A review, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 112, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004340, 2007.
Martínez-Martínez, J. M., Booth-Rea, G., Azañón, J. M., and Torcal, F.: Active transfer fault zone linking a segmented extensional system (Betics, Southern Spain): Insight into heterogeneous extension Driven by Edge Delamination, Tectonophysics, 422, 159–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2006.06.001, 2006.
Mattei, M., Sagnotti, L., Faccenna, C., and Funiciello, R.: Magnetic fabric of weakly deformed clay-rich sediments in the Italian peninsula: Relationship with compressional and extensional tectonics, Tectonophysics, 271, 107–122, 1997.
Mattei, M., D'Agostino, N., Zananiri, I., Kondopoulou, D., Pavlides, S., and Spatharas, V.: Tectonic evolution of fault-bounded continental blocks: Comparison of paleomagnetic and GPS data in the Corinth and Megara basins (Greece), Solid Earth, 109, B02106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002506, 2004.
Mazzoli, S. and Helman, M.: Neogene patterns of relative plate motion for Africa-Europe: some implications for recent central Mediterranean tectonics, Geol. Rund, 83, 464–68, 1994.
Milia, A., Turco, E., Pierantoni, P. P., and Schettino, A.: Four-dimensional tectono- stratigraphic evolution of the southeastern Peri-Tyrrhenian Basins (Margin of Calabria, Italy), Tectonophysics, 476, 41–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2009.02.030, 2009.
Mitra, G. and Sussman, A. J.: Structural evolution of connecting splay duplexes and their implications for critical taper; an example based on geometry and kinematics of the Canyon Range culmination, Sevier Belt, central Utah, J. Struct. Geol., 19, 503–521, 1997.
Papazachos, B. C., Karakostas, V. G., Papazachos, C. B., and Scordilis, E. M.: The geometry of the Wadati-Benioff zone and lithospheric kinematics in the Hellenic arc, Tectonophysics, 319, 275–300, 2000.
Parés, J. M.: How deformed are weakly deformed mudrocks? Insights from magnetic anisotropy, Geol. Soc. Sp., 238, 191–203, 2004.
Parés, J. M. and Dinarès, J.: Magnetic fabric in two sedimentary rock types from the Southern Pyrenees, J. Geomagn. Geoelectr., 45, 193–205, https://doi.org/10.5636/jgg.45.193, 1993.
Parés, J. M. and van der Pluijm, B. A.: Evaluating magnetic lineations (AMS) in deformed rocks, Tectonophysics, 350, 283–298, 2002.
Parés, J. M., van der Pluijm, B., and Dinares-Turell, J.: Evolution of magnetic fabrics during incipient deformation of mudrocks (Pyrenees, northern Spain), Tectonophysics, 307, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(99)00115-8, 1999.
Parés, J. M., Hassold, N. J. C., Rea, D. K., and van der Pluijm, B. A.: Paleocurrent directions from paleomagnetic reorientation of magnetic fabrics in deep-sea sediments at the Antarctic Peninsula Pacific margin (ODP Sites 1095, 1101), Mar. Geol., 242, 261–269, 2007.
Peacock, C. P., Tavernelli, E., and Anderson, M. W.: Interplay between stress permutations and overpressure to cause strike-slip faulting during tectonic inversion, Terra Nova, 29, 61–70, https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12249, 2017.
Pialli, G., Barchi, M., and Minelli, G.: Results of the CROP 03 deep seismic reflection profile, Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital., 52, 647 pp., 1998.
Picotti, V. and Pazzaglia, F. J.: A new active tectonic model for the construction of the Northern Apennines mountain front near Bologna (Italy), J. Geophys. Res., 113, B08412, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005307, 2008.
Platt, J. P., Anczkiewicz, R., Soto, J. I., and Kelley, S. P., and Thirlwall, M.: Early Miocene continental subduction and rapid exhumation in the western Mediterranean, Geology, 34, 981–984, 2006.
Platt, J. P., Behr, W. M., Johanesen, K., and Williams, J. R.: The Betic-Rif Arc and its orogenic hinterland: a review, Annu. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc., 41, 313–357, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-123951, 2013.
Pondrelli, S., Salimbeni, S., Ekstrom, G., Morelli, A., Gasperini, P., and Vannucci, G.: The Italian CMT dataset from 1977 to the present, Phys. Earth Planet Int., 159, 286–303, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2006.07.008, 2006.
Porreca, M. and Mattei, M.: AMS fabric and tectonic evolution of Quaternary intramontane extensional basins in the Picentini Mountains (southern Apennines, Italy), Int. J. Earth Sci., 101, 863–877, 2012.
Porreca, M., Minelli, G., Ercoli, M., Brobia A., Mancinelli, P., Cruciani, F., Giorgetti, C., Carboni, F., Mirabella, F., Cavinato, G., Cannata, A., Pauselli, C., and Barchi, M. R.: Seismic Reflection Profiles and Subsurface Geologyof the Area Interested by the 2016–2017 Earthquake Sequence (Central Italy), Tectonics, 1116–1137, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017TC004915, 2018.
Ramsay, J. G. and Huber, M. I.: The Techniques of Modern Structural Geology, Vol. 1, Academic Press, San Diego, 1984.
Roberts, G. P. and Michetti, A. M.: Spatial and temporal variations in growth rates along active normal fault systems: an example from the Lazio-Abruzzo Apennines, central Italy, J. Struct. Geol., 26, 339–376, 2004.
Rosenbaum, G., Lister, G. S., and Duboz, C.: Reconstruction of the Tectonic Evolution of the Western Mediterranean since the Oligocene, Tectonophysics, 359, 117–129, 2002.
Rovida, A., Locati, M., and Camassi, R.: The Italian earthquake catalogue CPTI15, B. Earthq. Eng., 18, 2953–2984, 2020.
Sagnotti, L. and Speranza, S.: Magnetic fabrics analysis of the Plio- Pleistocene clayey units of the Sant'Arcangelo basin, Southern Italy, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 77, 165–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(93)90096-R, 1993.
Sagnotti, L., Speranza, F., Winkler, A., Mattei., and Funiciello, R.: Magnetic fabric of clay sediments from the external northern Apennines (Italy), Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 105, 73–93, 1998.
Sanz De Galdeano, C.: Geologic evolution of the Betic Cordilleras in the Western Mediterranean, Miocene to the present, Tectonophysics, 172, 107–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(90)90062-D, 1990.
Sanz De Galdeano, C. and Vera, J. A.: Stratigraphic record and palaeogeographical context of the Neogene basins in the Betic Cordillera, Spain. Basin Res., 4, 21–36, 1992.
Schwehr, K., Tauxe, L., Driscoll, N., and Lee, H.: Detecting compaction disequilibrium with anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 7, Q11002, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GC001378, 2006.
Soto, J. I., Fernandez-Ibanez, F., Fernandez, M., and Garcia-Casco, A.: Thermal structure of the crust in the Gilbralter Arc: Influence on active tectonicsin the western Mediterranean, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 9, 11, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GC002061, 2008.
Soto, R., Larrasoaña, J. C., Arlegui, L. E., Beamud, E., Oliva-Urcia, B., and Simón, J. L.: Reliability of magnetic fabrics of weakly deformed mudrocks as a palaeostress indicator in compressive settings, J. Struct. Geol., 31, 512–522, 2009.
Stich, D., Serpelloni, E., Mancilla, F. d. L., and Morales, J.: Kinematics of the Iberia – Maghreb plate contact from seismic moment tensors and GPS observations, Tectonophysics, 426, 295–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2006.08.004, 2006.
Tarling, D. H. and Hrouda, F.: The Magnetic Anisotropy of Rocks, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1993.
Tauxe, L., Shaar, R. Jonestrask, L., Swanson-Hysell, N. L., Minnett, R., Koppers, A. A. P., Constable, C., G., Jarboe, N., Gaastra, K., and Fairchild, L.: PmagPy: Software package for paleomagnetic data analysis and a bridge to the Magnetics Information Consortium (MagIC) Database, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 17, 2450–2463, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GC006307, 2016.
Tarquini, S., Vinci, S., Favalli, M., Doumaz, F., Fornaciai, A., and Nannipieri, L.: Release of a 10-m-resolution DEM for the Italian territory: Comparison with global-coverage DEMs and anaglyph-mode exploration via the web, Comp. Geosci., 38, 168–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.04.018, 2012.
Wegmann, K. W. and Pazzaglia, F. J.: Late Quaternary fluvial terraces of the Romagna and Marche Apennines, Italy: Climatic, lithologic, and tectonic controls on terrace genesis in an active orogen, Quaternary Sci. Rev., 28, 137–165, 2009.
Weill, A. B. and Yonkee, A.: Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility in weakly deformed red beds from the Wyoming salient, Sevier thrust belt: Relations to layer-parallel shortening and orogenic curvature, Lithosphere, 1, 235–256, https://doi.org/10.1130/L42.1, 2009.
Valoroso, L., Chiaraluce, L., Di Stefano, R., and Monachesi, G.: Mixed-mode slip behavior of the Alto Tiberina low-angle normal fault system (Northern Apennines, Italy) through high-resolution earthquake locations and repeating events, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 122, 10220–10240, 2017.
Xiao, H.-B., Dahlen, F. A., and Suppe, J.: Mechanics of extensional wedges, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 10301–10318, 1991.
Kinematic studies for active tectonic research
The AMS method
Example I: Sierra Nevada massif, Spain
Example II: Northern Apennines, Italy
Tools, data and models for 3-D seismotectonics: Italy as a...
The anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) technique provides an effective way to interpret deforming mountain belts. In both the Betics, Spain, and Apennines, Italy, weak but well-organized AMS fabrics were recovered from young unconsolidated and unburied rocks that could not be analyzed with more traditional methods. Collectively, these studies demonstrate the novel ways that AMS can be combined with other data to resolve earthquake hazards in space and time.
The anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) technique provides an effective way to interpret...


Reach new heights in these curve hugging Devine Luv jeans. The light grey wash creates cool contrast for an easy day-to-evening look. Unique detailing on all five pockets. Medium rise, Regular fit, Straight leg.


Budget hotel aggregators OYO Rooms and Zo Rooms will no longer list on online travel agencies MakeMyTrip, Goibibo and Yatra.
The three OTAs have blocked OYO Rooms and Zo Rooms,The Economic Times, which first reported the development, said in a news report quoting executives of MakeMyTrip, OYO Rooms and Zo Rooms.
The OTAs seek to protect their market share in the hotel bookings space, which is a high margin category.
Separate emails to OYO Rooms, Zo Rooms, MakeMyTrip, Goibibo and Yatra did not elicit a response till the time of writing this news report.
Both OYO Rooms and Zo Rooms say that the delisting move will not have a major impact on their business. While OYO Rooms said less than 10 percent of its sales come from OTA platforms, Zo expects its mobile app to make up for the temporary dip in sales, the news report suggested.
OYO Rooms, Zo Rooms, Treebo, ZiP Rooms, Zen Rooms and WudStay are aggressively trying to disrupt the highly fragmented market for no-frills budget hotel business with their own version of alternative accommodation. Anchored on an asset-light business model, they are essentially aggregating standalone budget hotels, strapping them with a common brand with a promise to the consumer to offer a standardised set of amenities like a conventional budget hotel chain. On the other hand, large OTAs such as MakeMyTrip, Yatra, Goibibo and Cleartrip among others simply list hotels of all categories.
Delhi-based OYO Rooms, owned and operated by Oravel Stays Pvt Ltd, had raised $100 million (Rs 635 crore) in a fresh round of funding in August this year, led by Japanese tech conglomerate SoftBank. Existing investors Sequoia Capital India, Lightspeed Venture Partners and Greenoaks Capital also put money in this round. OYO caters to over 15,000 rooms in 90 cities and with its latest round of fundraising, the company is gunning for 50,000 rooms across 100 cities by the current year end.
In July, WudStay Travels Pvt Ltd, which owns and operates online room booking portal WudStay.com, raised $3 million in Series A funding from venture capital firm Mangrove Capital Partners and Nimbuzz CEO Vikas Saxena. Before that, Bangalore-based Treebo Hotels raised $6 million co-led by Matrix Partners India and SAIF Partners.
It may be recalled that Naspers-owned Goibibo floated its own version of the budget hotel aggregation business. It recently unveiled goStays, a standardised budget accommodation starting at Rs 999 per day (with free breakfast) at multiple Indian cities. Yatra.com recently launched TG Rooms and TG Stays with a starting price of Rs 499 in over 60 cities.


Sasya - Saturday, February 2, 2019.
How many times has a garment suffered because the tailoring did not do it justice?
How many times has a beautiful garment lost its charm because it did not fit the way it should on the person wearing it?
It's time to put an end to all this injustice.
Garments meant for special occasions deserve special attention in their making. A unique, unconventional, statement-making design needs an equally perfected tailoring to bring out the elegance and the touch of classy royalty in the garment.
Bespoke tailoring has been gaining ground recently because of its unique advantages it offers. For starters, it completely debunks the idea of one-size-fits-all, which is the standard norm at almost every other clothes shop.
Apart from that, bespoke tailoring offers a lot of options in customization. Right from the choice of design to the garment that has been crafted specially for you, designer shops like Sasya take care of an end-to-end process of perfection to produce a garment worthy of its owner. There are three garment trials, to ensure nothing short of perfection is attained in the fitting.
Originality is another premium feature offered by bespoke tailoring. As the client, you have complete control over the design- so bespoke tailoring is the perfect choice for you if you prefer something unconventional, unique and something which stands for you. At the end of the day, clothes express your personality. Bespoke tailoring is the perfect method for you to bring out your uniqueness.
Bespoke tailoring is completely handcrafted. By investing in bespoke tailoring, you get high returns in terms of value. You get hours of dedicated work, made keeping your needs in mind. You get a garment that is handcrafted to perfection, only for you.
Sasya is a high-end garments store based out of Kolkata. Sasya caters to both women's wear as well as men's wear. The company's chief focus is to create not just stunning, but rare designs for its customers, because like the brand, their customers are also one-of-a kind. Sasya's designs focus chiefly on marrying the traditional with the modern, and create garments that stand for ethnicity and modernity simultaneously.
Rare is a statement. Rare is a way to be. Rare is a call to have an unfair advantage. We stand for Rare. Offering designer attires for Men and Women. Pret Wear, Casuals, Ethnic, Wedding, Bespoke Tailoring. All Rare.


text:
NGC 5622 (другие обозначения — UGC 9248, MCG 8-26-32, ZWG 247.28, KARA 630, IRAS14244+4847, PGC 51541) — спиральная галактика (Sb) в созвездии Волопас.

Этот объект входит в число перечисленных в оригинальной редакции «Нового общего каталога».

Примечания

5622
Волопас (созвездие)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
const genish = require( 'genish.js' )

module.exports = function( Gibber ) {

'use strict'

const WavePattern = {
  create( abstractGraph, values ) {
    // might change due to proxy functionality, so use 'let'
    let graph = abstractGraph.render( 'genish' ) // convert abstraction to genish.js graph

    const patternOutputFnc = function( isViz = false ) {
      if( isViz && pattern.vizinit === false ) {
        return
      }
      pattern.run( isViz )

      let signalValue = pattern.signalOut()
      // edge case... because adjust might lead to a value of 1
      // which accum would wrap AFTER the obtaining the current value
      // leading to an undefined value for the pattern output (e.g. pattern[ pattern.length ] )
      let outputBeforeFilters = signalValue

      // if there is an array of values to read from... (signal is a phasor indexing into a values array)
      if( pattern.__usesValues === true && isViz === false ) {
        // have to wait to declare this array for annotations to be processed
        if( pattern.update !== undefined ) {
          if( pattern.update.__currentIndex === undefined ) pattern.update.__currentIndex = []
        }

        if( signalValue === 1 ) signalValue = 0

        const scaledSignalValue = signalValue * ( pattern._values.length )
        const adjustedSignalValue = Math.abs( scaledSignalValue )//scaledSignalValue < 0 ? pattern._values.length + scaledSignalValue : scaledSignalValue
        const roundedSignalValue  = Math.floor( adjustedSignalValue )
        //console.log( scaledSignalValue, adjustedSignalValue, roundedSignalValue )
        outputBeforeFilters = pattern._values[ roundedSignalValue ]

        if( pattern.update !== undefined ) {
          pattern.update.__currentIndex.push( roundedSignalValue )
        }
      }

      let output = outputBeforeFilters

      // if we are running the pattern solely to visualize the waveform data...
      if( isViz === true && pattern.vizinit && Gibber.Environment.annotations === true ) {
        Gibber.Environment.codeMarkup.waveform.updateWidget( abstractGraph.paramID, signalValue, false )
      }else if( Gibber.Environment.annotations === true && pattern.widget !== undefined ) {
        // mark the last placed value by the visualization as having a "hit",
        // which will cause a dot to be drawn on the sparkline.
        const idx = 60 + Math.round( pattern.nextTime * 16  )
        const oldValue = pattern.widget.values[ idx ]

        pattern.widget.values[ idx ] = { value: signalValue, type:'hit' }
      }

      if( typeof pattern.genReplace === 'function' ) { pattern.genReplace( output ) }

      if( output === pattern.DNR ) output = null

      if( pattern.running === false ) {
        Gibber.Environment.animationScheduler.add( pattern.runVisualization, 1000/60 )
        pattern.running = true
      }

      return output
    }

    patternOutputFnc.wavePattern = true

    const pattern = Gibber.Pattern( patternOutputFnc )

    patternOutputFnc.pattern = pattern

    // check whether or not to use raw signal values
    // or index into values array
    pattern.__usesValues = values !== undefined

    if( abstractGraph.patterns === undefined ) {
      abstractGraph.patterns = []
      abstractGraph.graphs = []
    }
    abstractGraph.patterns.push( pattern )
    abstractGraph.graphs.push( graph )

    if( abstractGraph.__listeners === undefined ) {
      abstractGraph.__listeners = []
    }

    const proxyFunction = ( oldAbstractGraph, newAbstractGraph ) => {
      graph = newAbstractGraph.render( 'genish' )

      if( newAbstractGraph.patterns === undefined ) {
        newAbstractGraph.patterns = []
        newAbstractGraph.graphs = []
      }
      newAbstractGraph.patterns.push( pattern )
      newAbstractGraph.graphs.push( graph )
      // XXX what the heck is the patterns array used for?
      newAbstractGraph.widget = oldAbstractGraph.patterns[0].widget

      pattern.graph = graph
      pattern.signalOut = genish.gen.createCallback( graph, mem, false, false, Float64Array ),
      pattern.phase = 0
      pattern.initialized = false
      pattern.widget = newAbstractGraph.widget

      // reset min and max values for sparkline in case amplitudes have changed
      pattern.widget.min = Infinity
      pattern.widget.max = -Infinity
      pattern.widget.values.length = 0
      pattern.widget.storage.length = 0

      if( newAbstractGraph.__listeners === undefined ) {
        newAbstractGraph.__listeners = []
      }
      newAbstractGraph.__listeners.push( proxyFunction )
    }

    abstractGraph.__listeners.push( proxyFunction )

    pattern.clear = function() {
      if( pattern.widget !== undefined  ) {
        if( abstractGraph.widget !== undefined ) {
          delete abstractGraph.widget
        }
        pattern.widget.clear()
        delete pattern.widget
        pattern.running = false
      }else if( abstractGraph.widget !== undefined ) {
        abstractGraph.widget.clear()
        delete abstractGraph.widget
        pattern.running = false
      }
    }

    Gibber.subscribe( 'clear', pattern.clear )

    // if memory block has not been defined, create new one by passing in an undefined value
    // else reuse exisitng memory block
    let mem = genish.gen.memory || 44100 * 2

    Object.assign( pattern, {
      type: pattern.__usesValues ? 'Lookup' : 'WavePattern',
      graph,
      abstractGraph,
      paramID:abstractGraph.paramID || Math.round( Math.random() * 1000000 ),
      _values:values,
      signalOut: genish.gen.createCallback( graph, mem, false, false, Float64Array ),
      adjust: WavePattern.adjust.bind( pattern ),
      phase:0,
      run: WavePattern.run.bind( pattern ),
      runVisualization: WavePattern.runVisualization.bind( patternOutputFnc ),
      running: false,
      initialized:false,
      vizinit:true,
      shouldStop:false,
      __listeners:[]
    })

    if( abstractGraph.paramID === undefined ) abstractGraph.paramID = pattern.paramID

    // for assigning an abstract graph to a variable
    // and then passing that variable as a pattern to a sequence
    if( abstractGraph.widget !== undefined ) {
      pattern.widget = abstractGraph.widget
      Gibber.Environment.codeMarkup.waveform.widgets[ abstractGraph.paramID ] = pattern.widget
    }

    Gibber.Gen.connected.push( pattern )

    return pattern
  },

  runVisualization() {
    // pass true for visualization run as opposed to audio run
    // this represents the patternOutputFunction, pass true to create sparkline
    // without triggering output

    this( true ) // I LOVE JS

    if( this.pattern.shouldStop === false )
      Gibber.Environment.animationScheduler.add( this.pattern.runVisualization, 1000 / 60 )
  },

  assignInputProperties( genishGraph, abstractGraph ) {

    for( let input in abstractGraph.inputs ) {
      if( typeof abstractGraph.inputs[ input ] === 'number' ) {
        let __param = genishGraph.inputs[ input ] = genish.param( abstractGraph.inputs[ input ] )
        abstractGraph[ input ] = v => {
          __param.value = v
        }
      }
    }
  },

  run( isViz = false ) {
    let now
    if( isViz === true ) {
      now = Gibber.Environment.animationScheduler.visualizationTime.base + Gibber.Environment.animationScheduler.visualizationTime.phase //+ 4
    }else{
      now = Gibber.Scheduler.currentTimeInMs
    }

    if( this.initialized === true ) {
      const adjustment =  now - this.phase
      this.adjust( this.graph, adjustment )
    }else{
      this.initialized = true
    }

    this.phase = now
    //debugger;
  },

  adjust( ugen, ms ) {
    if( ugen.shouldNotAdjust === true ) {
      ugen.shouldNotAdjust = false
      return
    }
    // subtract one sample for the phase incremenet that occurs during
    // the genish.js callback
    const numberOfSamplesToAdvance = ( ms/1000 ) * (Gibber.__gen.genish.gen.samplerate  )

    if( ugen.name !== undefined && ( ugen.name.indexOf( 'accum' ) > -1 || ugen.name.indexOf( 'phasor' ) > -1 ) )  {
      if( ugen.name.indexOf( 'accum' ) > -1 ) {
        ugen.value += typeof ugen.inputs[0] === 'object'
          ? numberOfSamplesToAdvance  * ugen.inputs[0].value
          : numberOfSamplesToAdvance * ugen.inputs[0]

      }else{
        const range = ugen.max - ugen.min
        let __ugen = ugen

        while( __ugen.inputs !== undefined ) {
          __ugen = __ugen.inputs[0]
        }

        // needs .value because the result should be a param
        const freq = __ugen.value
        const incr = (freq * range ) / Gibber.__gen.genish.gen.samplerate
        const adjustAmount = (numberOfSamplesToAdvance-1)  * incr

        ugen.value += adjustAmount
      }

      // wrap or clamp accum value manuallly
      if( ugen.shouldWrap === true ) {
        if( ugen.value > ugen.max ) {
          while( ugen.value > ugen.max ) {
            ugen.value -= ugen.max - ugen.min
          }
        } else if( ugen.value < ugen.min ) {
          while( ugen.value < ugen.min ) {
            ugen.value += ugen.max - ugen.min
          }
        }
      }else if( ugen.shouldClamp === true ) {
        if( ugen.value > ugen.max ) {
          ugen.value = max
        }else if( ugen.value < ugen.min ) {
          ugen.value = min
        }
      }
    }

    if( typeof ugen.inputs !== 'undefined' ) {

      ugen.inputs.forEach( u => {
        if( typeof u === 'object' || typeof u === 'function' )
          WavePattern.adjust( u,ms )
      })
    }
  }

}

return WavePattern.create

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Have a group of up to 4 people that want to spend the night in a float tank? Our overnight floats have been met with a lot of enthusiasm, lucid dreams, extended periods of pain relief, and the chance to spend several hours in suspended animation.
The overnight float goes from 12am-7am with snacks and coffee provided afterwards. Cost is $975 for the entire group (up to 4 people) and is by reservation only. A 50% non-refundable deposit is required at time of reservation. Call us at (510) 423-8772 or email float@oaklandfloats.com for more info and to reserve a spot.


Why have I never shared these?
Alright, lets chat a minute….
Last year I went on a trip to find fall. Fall is my absolute favorite time of year and I was determined to get some pretty fall images. Well on my adventure I ended up in June lake at the absolute perfect timing. All the aspens were gorgeous variations of yellows and oranges. I was ecstatic.
So I thought it was the perfect opportunity to create a beautiful fall landscape photography video. After I got all my footage and took some of the best fall images I have ever taken I got home and headed right to the computer to edit my video. I just HAD to share these images with you.
Well…. lets just say I was disappointed to say the least. The footage that I captured pretty much sucked. Yes…. sucked. I tried and tried and tried to make a video, but I just couldn't. Everything about the video just wasn't awesome. So I sat on it.
Later on I tried again to create the video because I just really wanted to share the images with you; however, I still just couldn't. Maybe that is my perfectionist inside of me, but I just really didn't like any of it. It was a crazy windy day which made for terrible noise. The video didn't have much sequence behind it and seemed to just jump around like crazy. So again I didn't post it.
Now it's Fall of 2018. One whole year later. I thought to my self 'hey this is the perfect time to post that video. Let's do this!' So again I tried and again I failed. Then I decided that there have just been too many times that I haven't posted. Too many videos that I have created and that just end up in the recycle bin on my computer. Too many times that I have been a perfectionist and not shared some of the goodness with you even though it isn't really up to snuff.
I decided that it was finally time to share this no matter what. So I created a different sort of video. Something that I wasn't happy with, something that was less than par, and something that I forced myself to post anyways….
My thought behind this video is that it is better to share something less than perfect than to not share anything at all.
We are our own worst critics. We judge ourselves, talk negatively about our creations, and eventually just talk ourselves out of creating and / or sharing with others due to this idea that everything has to be just so.
I truly believe that so many amazing things have been created and thrown away just because the creator thought it wasn't good enough. It could have been the next world masterpiece; however, it ended up in a trashcan somewhere.
So, it is time to just stop it. To stop throwing our creations away. So what if they aren't perfect, and so what if they don't get the best reviews. The idea is that you are still creating, still sharing, and still inspiring others. Plus, sometimes the imperfect things are really the best.
So here is my imperfect video with some of my best photos I have ever taken. Here is the video that I didn't post for over a year because I judged everything about it. Here is a different take on my normal style, something that I am incredibly nervous to share and something that might have people judging my abilities, but here it is anyways.
I hope you all enjoyed this blog. Have you been to June Lake before? If so leave a comment below . I would love to hear about your trip!


Ohio State's Dominic Canzone (33) slides safely across home to score a run for the Buckeyes during a Snowbird Classic Baseball game against Seton Hall University earlier this year. Ohio State and Seton Hall were among 19 NCAA Division I teams and 25 Division III teams to play in this year's baseball classic, which is estimated to have generated more than $13 million.
Northeastern's Tyler Brown pitches against Dartmouth College during the Snowbird Baseball Classic at North Charlotte Regional Park near the Charlotte-Sarasota line. Officials announced Friday that the tournament produced about $13 million in economic impact with more than 1,800 players and coaches, along with more than 13,000 spectators, occupying 23,000-plus hotel rooms during the month-long classic in Charlotte County.
The Braves in North Port and the Rays in Port Charlotte may attract the most media attention, but the Snowbird Baseball Classic once again proved to be a multi-million dollar success for the region.
Nineteen Division I and 25 Division III teams participated in the 11th annual Snowbird Baseball Classic which ran from Feb. 15-March 22 this year at various sports venues in the county, the Punta Gorda Englewood Beach Visitor and Convention Bureau reports.
A total of 13,120 people attended the games this year. That includes the 1,820 people related to the team such as coaches, players, trainers and other staff. Out-of-towners spent an average of 7.3 nights here in more than 23,300 room-nights at county accommodations, according to the county's consulting research group which issued its economic impact analysis Friday.
The economic impact of those games is estimated at $8.7 million of direct spending by out-of-towners during those five weeks, including spectators and teams.
"The Snowbird Baseball Classic has grown to be the largest spring baseball gathering of Division I schools in the country and is attracting top Division III teams too," said Steven Partington, tournament director.
Those players, coaches, families and fans also spend money for restaurants, shops, rental cars, event admission, entertainment and local attractions, creating a total impact calculated at about $13 million.
While the number of teams remains similar to five years ago — the last time the county paid for an analysis — the benefits have risen substantially along with the number of attendees. In 2014, the total benefit was calculated at $9 million, including direct and indirect spending. The number of attendees was 9,992.
The county's Sports Marketing Manager Sean Doherty said reasons for the increase are hard to calculate, in part because the county has switched research companies. Some teams bring more spectators, he said. The biggest monetary impact may be the increase in the cost of hotel rooms, he said, and the fact that tourists are spending more.


Are You Well Invested? Wondering if There's a Better Way?
Today's investment environment coupled with complex regulation and changing tax laws is more complicated than ever. At this stage in your life, you may require a higher degree of customization and advice regarding your desire for financial independence. Our firm has helped clients – just like you – to develop a flexible wealth plan that's designed to help achieve your financial goals.
While developing a customized financial program, we will walk you through a step-by-step process that will help make you feel confident in your decisions. Once your goals have been established, we will customize appropriate strategies to suit your vision and objectives.


text:
Shenwan Hongyuan Group Announces its 2021 Third Quarter Results
Net Profit Increased Significantly, Greater Efforts in NEEQ Select
HONG KONG, Nov. 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Shenwan Hongyuan Group Co., Ltd. ("Shenwan Hongyuan Group", "Shenwan Hongyuan" or the "Company") (stock code: 6806.HK; 000166.SZ) announced its results for the nine months ended September 30, 2021 (the "Reporting Period").
Since the beginning of 2021, the Company has been continuously promoting the integrated development of its "investment & investment banking" business and achieved growth. During the first nine months of the year, total revenue and other income of the Company was RMB24.89 billion, representing a year-on-year increase of 15.88%. Net profit attributable to shareholders of the Company reached RMB7.41 billion, representing a year-on-year increase of 13.48%. Basic earnings per share was RMB0.30, representing a year-on-year increase of 15.38%. Return on Equity was 8.05%, representing a year-on-year increase of 0.42 ppt.
Key business highlights during the Reporting Period are as below:
Leveraged advantages as a central enterprise to fully assist the setup of the new stock exchange in Beijing and NEEQ (National Equities Exchange and Quotations) Select Reform. As the very first securities company to participate in the OTC trading business, the Company regarded the NEEQ as its strategic and characteristic business to serve micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and practice inclusive finance. Being the only securities company in the industry that has an established NEEQ business team, the Company has served over 3,000 small and medium-sized enterprises. It ranked the first in terms of the number of guided companies, and the second in terms of sponsored companies of the NEEQ Select. Since announcement of the establishment of the new stock exchange, the Company has deployed relevant business and actively built a full industry chain of serving small and medium-sized enterprise with the characteristics of "specialization, refinement, differentiation, and innovation" from "research + investment banking + investment + funds + market making + wealth management + derivatives". It developed equity fund businesses in the primary market to invest in associated enterprises and established mutual funds and asset management products in the secondary market to provide wealth management services for innovative small and medium-sized enterprises of the new stock exchange. The Company also served the market making business to provide professional liquidity support for the associated enterprises of the new stock exchange.
Actively served national strategies and assisted the development of the real economy. The Company focused on self-reliance and self-improvement in science and technology, and sponsored IPOs of high-tech companies such as Actions Technology, Sinocat Environmental Technology, Kaierda and China Information Communication Technologies. It also invested in high-tech companies in the biology, environmental protection and medical care sectors. The Company also participated in the establishment of multiple science and technology innovation funds and invested in high-tech projects. It was selected as the Vice Chairman unit of the China Green Carbon Foundation in support of "peak carbon dioxide emissions" and "carbon neutrality", successfully held the "carbon neutrality" conference and issued the Shenwan Hongyuan Carbon Neutrality White Paper. The Company established the first "carbon neutrality" team in the industry and successfully sponsored the IPO listing of green enterprises such as China Three Gorges Renewables and Hengsheng Energy. It combined derivatives business with green finance and launched the first carbon neutrality bond index yield certificate in the market. The Company also invested in several new energy and energy conservation and environmental protection enterprises and initiated the establishment of carbon neutrality industry funds in Shaanxi and Anhui with local state-owned enterprises to support "carbon neutrality" projects.
Optimized and balanced business structure to accelerate high-quality development.
The Company continued to improve its competitiveness in the capital-light business. Transformation of its wealth management business continued to accelerate. Net income from brokerage business achieved RMB4.81 billion during the first nine months, representing a year-on-year increase of 13.68%. Joint growth from stock and equity were recorded in regards of the investment banking business, which increased by 30.51% over the same period last year and achieved RMB1.17 billion. Income from asset management business recorded RMB938 million, representing a year-on-year increase of 4.05%. With regards to the capital-heavy business, it maintained high-quality development with reasonable risk exposure control. The Company saw remarkable growth in securities investment trading businesses. Other income and gains from changes in fair value recorded RMB7.81 billion during the first nine months, representing a year-on-year increase of 45.20%. The Company grasped market opportunities, allocated fixed income investment steadily, further optimized its positioning structure and explored various "multi-strategy" of bonds for FICC business, which significantly improved investment returns. In terms of derivatives business, the scale of the Company's existing and new business of OTC options ranked top in the industry. New businesses also ranked first in the industry, while the cross-border business achieved significant growth.
Practiced social responsibility to fully embrace the role of a state-owned financial enterprise. On the back of Henan province being inundated by severe flooding, the Company moved quickly to implement social responsibilities by donating approximately RMB8 million. It also actively participated in pandemic prevention and control, poverty alleviation and disease eradication through the investment and market making of special bonds such as treasury bonds and debt targeted at small and micro enterprises. The Company also reduced costs for clients in the affected area to assist with post-disaster reconstruction and devoted itself to the rural revitalization of Huining in Gansu province, increasing the investment in talents and capital. It donated RMB2.5 million to Maigaiti County in Xinjiang Province and received RMB15 million in subsidies from Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange. All the subsidies were utilized to carry out the "insurance + futures" project centered on the promotion of jujube and cotton to support the development of local pillar industries.
High rating by the industry authority showcases the Company's good reputation. According to the results of classified evaluation of securities companies published by the Shenzhen Stock Exchange on information disclosure, the Company was rated Class A, which was the sixth consecutive year since the Company's listing, showcasing its continuous efforts in upholding shareholders' rights while practicing social responsibilities. In addition, according to the results of lead underwriters' credit rating in 2020 announced by the NDRC (National Development and Reform Commission), the Company was again rated as a Class A lead underwriter, demonstrating its leading underwriter position which reflected positively the capital market.
China's economy maintained a steady recovery in the first half of the year. Moving into the third quarter, more risks and challenges appeared both domestically and internationally with the flareup of the pandemic globally slowing down the recovery momentum of the world economy. Standing at the starting point of the "14th Five-year Plan", the Company will continue to accelerate its strategic layout, cultivate business advantages, put clients at the center, improve competitiveness and seize the strategic opportunities in the capital market. The Company will also accelerate the promotion of its industry status and adhere to the business philosophy of seeking progress in stability, to create greater value for shareholders, customers and society.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl