INSTITUTO ARGENTINO DE NIVOLOGIA, GLACIOLOGIA Y CIENCIAS AMBIENTALES
Unidad Ejecutora - UE
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
JOSÉ FRANCISCO MESCUA; LAURA BEATRIZ GIAMBIAGI; FLORENCIA BECHIS
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
Lugar: Amsterdam; Año: 2012 vol. 42 p. 283 - 283
We thank Drs. Dimieri and Turienzo for their comments regarding our paper. We consider that ongoing research in the Andean fold-and-thrust belts will benefit from this kind of discussion between workers who propose different structural models. After the careful consideration of the arguments presented by Dimieri and Turienzo (2012), we find that in some points there is no disagreement: we also propose that new Andean thrusts took part in the deformation and uplift of the basement in some areas of the Malargüe FTB, such as the Bardas Blancas and Las Leñas sectors. However, we still find that the tectonic inversion model, specially the hybrid one with inverted previous faults and generation of new ones, is appropriate to explain the structure of some areas of the Malargüe FTB where extensional depocenters were developed during the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic. Where stratigraphic and structural observations indicate the existence of Mesozoic normal faults, our numerical models have shown that these structures have a high potential for reactivation in the Andean stress field. In particular, for the three examples that we presented in Mescua and Giambiagi (2012), the development of a Mesozoic extensional depocenter with great thickness of sedimentary deposits is, in our view, sufficiently documented, which leads us to favor tectonic inversion as the origin of these structures.