See the published version of this preprint at Scientific Reports.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research Article
Anna Tramelli
National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
The knowledge of the dynamic of the Campi Flegrei calderic system is a primary goal to mitigate the volcanic risk in one of the most densely populated volcanic areas in the world. From 50s to 80s Campi Flegrei suffered three bradyseismic crises with a total uplift of almost 4.3 m. After a period of subsidence of 20 years, the uplift started again in 2005 accompanied by a low increment in the seismicity rate. In 2012 an increment in the seismic energy release and a variation in the gas composition of the fumaroles of Solfatara (in the central area of the 1 caldera) were recorded. Since then, a slow and progressive increase in phenomena continued until today. We analyze the seismic catalogue of Campi Flegrei from 2000 to 2020 collected by INGV-Osservato-rio Vesuviano to look for any variation in the seismic parameters and compare them with geochemical monitored ones. A remarkable correlation between independent variables as earthquake cumulative number, CO/CO 2 values and vertical ground deformation reveals a likely common origin. The interpretation of the seismological, geochemical and geodetical observable brings back to the injection of magmatic fluids into the hydrothermal system or its pressurization.
Keywords
Campi Flegrei calderic system, volcanic risk, seismicity rate, gas composition
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
No competing interests reported.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Version 1
Posted 27 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 17 Feb, 2021
Reviews received
Received 11 Feb, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 01 Feb, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 27 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 27 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 25 Jan, 2021
First submitted
On 21 Jan, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Scientific Reports.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Anna Tramelli
National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Version 1
Posted 27 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 17 Feb, 2021
Reviews received
Received 11 Feb, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 01 Feb, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 27 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 27 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 25 Jan, 2021
First submitted
On 21 Jan, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
The knowledge of the dynamic of the Campi Flegrei calderic system is a primary goal to mitigate the volcanic risk in one of the most densely populated volcanic areas in the world. From 50s to 80s Campi Flegrei suffered three bradyseismic crises with a total uplift of almost 4.3 m. After a period of subsidence of 20 years, the uplift started again in 2005 accompanied by a low increment in the seismicity rate. In 2012 an increment in the seismic energy release and a variation in the gas composition of the fumaroles of Solfatara (in the central area of the 1 caldera) were recorded. Since then, a slow and progressive increase in phenomena continued until today. We analyze the seismic catalogue of Campi Flegrei from 2000 to 2020 collected by INGV-Osservato-rio Vesuviano to look for any variation in the seismic parameters and compare them with geochemical monitored ones. A remarkable correlation between independent variables as earthquake cumulative number, CO/CO 2 values and vertical ground deformation reveals a likely common origin. The interpretation of the seismological, geochemical and geodetical observable brings back to the injection of magmatic fluids into the hydrothermal system or its pressurization.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
No competing interests reported.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...