Reply to: Comment on the paper by Barreca et al.: The Strait of Messina: Seismotectonics and the source of the 1908 earthquake by G. Barreca, F. Gross, L. Scarfi, M. Aloisi, C. Monaco, S. Krastel (Earth-Science Reviews 218, 2021, 103685)

Pino et al. (2021, hereinafter PIN2021) commented on the paper by Barreca et al. (2021, hereinafter B2021) titled: The Strait of Messina: Seismotectonics and the source of the 1908 earthquake, which was published in the journal Earth-Sciences Reviews in May 2021. PIN2021 argued both on the source model of the 1908 EQ, as proposed by B2021, and on the existence of the newly discovered causative fault (i.e. the B2021W-Fault). Based on objective reading of achieved results along with other existing geophysical information..., PIN2021 conclude: the source mechanism for the 1908 EQ is based on incorrect assumptions, while their results are internally inconsistent and with other independent observations. According to PIN2021, the inconsistency of the proposed source mechanism, which foresaw the possibility of an aseismic slip on a low-angle discontinuity preceding the 1908 mainshock (see B2021), would be mainly demonstrated by the lack of significant variations of the relative sea level in the Messina harbor area, in the time period relevant for the levelling data (1907-1908) ...... . and at least for the decade preceding the event. Moreover, to demonstrate that the deformation is mostly coseismic, PIN2021 proposes a sea level diagram based on unreliable data from the Messina tide gauge. In this paper, we demonstrate that the comments by PIN2021 are unfounded. We strongly confirm the scientific validity of the model proposed in B2021.

Automated summary

In response to the paper by Barreca et al. (2021) on the source of the 1908 earthquake in the Strait of Messina, Pino et al. (2021) argued that the source mechanism is based on incorrect assumptions and internal inconsistencies. However, the authors of the original paper strongly defend the scientific validity of their model, rejecting the criticisms made by PIN2021.