GNGTS 2015 - Atti del 34° Convegno Nazionale

Argnani (2006) and Mantovani et al. (2007) for a detailed discussion and the more recent works of D’Agostino et al. (2008) and Weber et al. (2010)] . However, the considerable spreading of the decoupling zones so far proposed, concerning location (from the central Adriatic Sea to eastern Sicily), trend (various) and tectonic nature (from compressional to extensional), clearly underlines the ambiguity of the available evidence. The most significant evidence in support of an insignificant present relative motion between Nubia and Adria is given by the low level of seismicity in the presumed decoupling zones and the lack of a clear fault system cutting through the Adria domain. In our opinion, the above arguments cast serious doubts about the reliability of the Nubia- Eurasia relative motion provided by global kinematic models, suggesting the need of looking for an alternative less problematic solution. In this regard, it is worth considering that the Apulia kinematics indicated by GPS data (Fig. 1) is fairly compatible with the motion trend and rate of Nubia predicted by the long-term kinematic model proposed by Mantovani et al. (2007), as shown in Fig. 2. Since such model can also account for the Quaternary deformation pattern in the whole Mediterranean region and for the north Atlantic kinematic constraints, it seems to be the most reliable solution so far proposed. This opinion is not shared by Argus et al. (2010), who cast doubts about the reliability of the Mantovani et al. (2007) kinematic model. In particular, the above authors do not recognize the Iberia and Morocco independent microplates. As concerns Iberia, Argus et al. (2010) postulate that no significant relative motion between that domain and Eurasia is taking place at the Pyrenean collision zone, in particular the 1.5 mm/yr convergence rate implied by the Mantovani et al. (2007) model. However, it is difficult to believe that such small relative motion can be ruled out for a boundary zone where significant seismic activity takes place, and Fig. 2 – Plate configuration and long-term (Quaternary) kinematic pattern in the Mediterranean region provided by Mantovani et al. (2007). Black dots identify the location of the proposed Euler poles of the Arabia (ARA), Iberia (IBE), Morocco (MOR) and Nubia (NUB) plates with respect to Eurasia. Red arrows indicate the motions of the above plates with respect to Eurasia predicted by the respective Euler poles and the motion of the Anatolian-Aegean system. Blue arrows along plate borders show the relative motion of the Morocco and Arabia plates with respect to Nubia. CA Calabrian wedge (violet), Hy Hyblean wedge (brown), see Mantovani et al. (2009) and Viti et al. (2011) for the proposed kinematic pattern. The velocity field shown in the Anatolian-Aegean system is compatible with geological evidence (see Mantovani et al. , 2007a; Viti et al. , 2011). Main orogenic belts are pink. 1,2,3) Compressional, extensional and transcurrent features. 122 GNGTS 2015 S essione 1.2