Reply to L.V. Dimieri and M.M. Turienzo, 2012 comment on: "Fault inversion vs. new thrust generation: A case study in the Malargüe fold-and thrust belt, Andes of Argentina" by J. F. Mescua and L. B. Giambiagi, Journal of Structural Geology 35 (2012) 51-63

MESCUA, J., GIAMBIAGI, L. Y BECHIS, F.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD

Lugar: Amsterdam; Año: 2012 vol. 42 p. 283 - 287

0191-8141

After the careful consideration of the arguments presented by Dimieri and Turienzo 209 (2012), we find that in some points there is no disagreement: we also propose that new 210 Andean thrusts took part in the deformation and uplift of the basement in some areas of 211 the Malargüe FTB, such as the Bardas Blancas and Las Leñas sectors. However, we still 212 find that the tectonic inversion model, specially the hybrid one with inverted previous 213 faults and generation of new ones, is appropriate to explain the structure of some areas of 214 the Malargüe FTB where extensional depocenters were developed during the Late 215 Triassic and Early Jurassic. Where stratigraphic and structural observations indicate the 216 existence of Mesozoic normal faults, our numerical models have shown that these 217 structures have a high potential for reactivation in the Andean stress field. In particular, 218 for the three examples that we presented in Mescua and Giambiagi (2012), the 219 development of a Mesozoic extensional depocenter with great thickness of sedimentary 220 deposits is, in our view, sufficiently documented, which leads us to favor tectonic 221 inversion as the origin of these structures.