The Database of the Active Faults of Eurasia (AFEAD): Ontology and Design behind the Continental-Scale Dataset

Zelenin, Egor; Bachmanov, Dmitry; Garipova, Sofya; Trifonov, Vladimir; Kozhurin, Andrey

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-312

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-312

Preprints

05 Oct 2021

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal ESSD.

The Database of the Active Faults of Eurasia (AFEAD): Ontology and Design behind the Continental-Scale Dataset

Egor Zelenin¹, Dmitry Bachmanov¹, Sofya Garipova¹, Vladimir Trifonov¹, and Andrey Kozhurin^2,1 Egor Zelenin et al.

Show author details

¹Geological Institute, Moscow, 119017, Russia
²Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, Petropavlovsk‐Kamchatsky, 683006, Russia

Received: 19 Sep 2021 – Accepted for review: 04 Oct 2021 – Discussion started: 05 Oct 2021

Abstract. Active faults are those faults on which movement is possible in the future. It draws particular attention to active faults in geodynamic studies and seismic hazard assessment. Here we present a high-detail continental-scale geodatabase: The Active Faults of Eurasia Database (AFEAD). It comprises 46,775 objects stored in the shapefile format with spatial detail sufficient for a map of scale 1:1M. Fault sense, a rank of confidence in activity, a rank of slip rate, and a reference to source publications are provided for each database entry. Where possible, it is supplemented with a fault name, fault zone name, abbreviated fault parameters (e.g., slip rate, age of the last motion, total offset), and text information from the sources. The database was collected from 612 sources, including regional maps, databases, and research papers.

AFEAD facilitates a spatial search for local studies. It provides sufficient detail for planning a study of a particular fault system and guides deeper bibliographical investigations if needed. This scenario is particularly significant for vast Central and North Asia areas, where most studies are available only in Russian and hardcopy. Moreover, the database model provides the basis for GIS-based regional and continental-scale integrative studies.

The database is available at https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10333.74726 and via web map at http://neotec.ginras.ru/index/mapbox/database_map.html (last access: July 30, 2021). Some database representations with supplementary data are hosted at http://neotec.ginras.ru/index/english/database_eng.html.

Egor Zelenin et al.

Status: open (until 31 Dec 2021)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on essd-2021-312', Alessandro Tibaldi, 14 Oct 2021 reply

This work describes the characteristics and infrastructure of the “Active Faults of Eurasia Database”. The database comprises 46,775 structures formatted as a shapefile with spatial detail sufficient for a map at a 1:1 M scale. Each fault has a database that comprises fault sense, a rank of confidence, a rank of slip rate, and reference to source publications, supplemented, wherever possible, with a fault name, fault zone name, abbreviated fault parameters and text information from the sources. The database is available at various websites.

This work is of large international relevance and represents a step forward in the representation of the state-of-the-art knowledge of active faults, especially in Asia, where most studies are available in Russian and as hardcopy.

This database helps in the search of active faults in a given area, useful for assessing the framework of regional tectonic activity, or for focusing more in detail on a given structure. It provides the backbone for the study of a particular fault, and guides more-in-depth bibliographic analyses.

The paper is well written and contains all major information on the database, with a couple of short examples. I would only encourage the authors to add some more explanations about the seismicity showed in their web map. The map, in fact, contains also seismicity divided by major, middle and minor earthquakes. It would be wise to know more about the sources of these data, and the criteria of selection of the showed seismic events.

I recognize that it has been a strong effort to gather all this information. I also recognize that the authors have stated, at the ending of the paper, that they encourage researchers to advise them about missing or recently obtained data. Anyway, I have seen the lacking of some major active faults in the present database; for example, in Iceland very few faults have been presented in the database, respect to the available information. Among these, it should be added in the database at least the famous Husavik-Flatey transform fault that is now missing: this is a 100-km-long active structure that comprises an offshore section and a 25-km-long onland section. This structure has been widely studied with clear evidence of Holocene offset deposits, morphological indicators of right-lateral strike-slip motions, elongated seismicity along the fault trace (with some major earthquakes) and at least one paleoseismological trench opened across the fault (some relevant literature: Metzger et al., 2013, Present kinematics of the Tjornes Fracture Zone, North Iceland, from campaign and continuous GPS measurements. Geophys. J. Int., 192, 441-455. Pasquarè Mariotto et al., 2015, Holocene displacement field at an emerged oceanic transform-ridge junction: The Husavik-Flatey Fault - Gudfinnugja Fault system, North Iceland. J. Struct. Geol., 75, 118-134. Tibaldi et al., 2016, Interaction between transform faults and rift systems: a combined field and experimental approach. Frontiers in Earth Science, 4, 33. Tibaldi et al., 2016, Partitioning of Holocene kinematics and interaction between the Theistareykir Fissure Swarm and the Husavik-Flatey Fault, North Iceland. Journal of Structural Geology, 83, 134-155).

A few detailed observations on the text follow here:

At Line 30 it would be better to introduce here ILP with the entire name International Lithosphere Program, and after that you can use the acronymous. It is fully introduced only at Line 163.

Line 75 IN the database?

Line 93 Not clear why here you write about a target map scale of 1:1 M, whereas previously, at Line 36, you speak about 1:5 M scale, and then at Line 98 you cite a 1:500 000 scale. Explain better.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-312-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Egor Zelenin, 08 Nov 2021 reply
  
  Dear Dr. Tibaldi,
  
  Thank you for your comments, they significantly improve the database presentation. We have taken all these suggestions into account as follows:
  1. I would only encourage the authors to add some more explanations about the seismicity showed in their web map.
  
  – The seismicity layers in the web map display crustal earthquakes that occurred at the AFEAD faults. The earthquake at a fault indicates its activity, so we monitor worldwide earthquake catalogs of the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), U.S. Geological Survey and the International Seismological Centre (ISC) and pick events occurred at active faults to adjust CONF values. Collected events are stored with the key “Seism=” in PARM field of a relevant fault and visualized as earthquake layers of the web map. Their division in three groups of magnitude is arbitrary and was applied to provide more flexibility of map view. However, it doesn’t affect the database itself.
  
  2. I have seen the lacking of some major active faults in the present database; for example, in Iceland very few faults have been presented in the database, respect to the available information.
  
  – Fault pattern in Iceland definitely should be improved despite it was considered detailed enough during the database population. Provided data will be included in the forthcoming update of the AFEAD.
  
  3. The other comments suggest straightforward corrections to the text, and we accept them.
  
  We will correct the manuscript and the web map interface according to the replies above just after the end of open discussion period to avoid interfering with awaited reviews and comments.
  
  Sincerely yours,
  
  Egor Zelenin
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-312-AC1
  - RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Alessandro Tibaldi, 08 Nov 2021 reply
    
    I have read your reply and will wait to read the corrections when they are made in the new version of the paper.
    
    Reply
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-312-RC2

Egor Zelenin et al.

Data sets

AFEAD v.2021 Bachmanov, D. M., Trifonov, V. G., Kozhurin, A. I. and Zelenin E. A. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10333.74726

Egor Zelenin et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 429 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
333	78	18	429	6	7

HTML: 333
PDF: 78
XML: 18
Total: 429
BibTeX: 6
EndNote: 7

Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Oct 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2021	230	42	7	279
Nov 2021	101	33	11	145
Dec 2021	2	3	0	5

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Oct 2021)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2021	230	42	7	279
Nov 2021	101	33	11	145
Dec 2021	2	3	0	5

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 410 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 410 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 04 Dec 2021

Short summary

Active faults are faults in the Earth's crust with a possible future slip. A slip at the fault will cause an earthquake, and it draws particular attention to active faults in tectonic studies and seismic hazard assessment. We present the Active Faults of Eurasia Database (AFEAD), a high-detail continental-scale geodatabase comprising 46,775 faults. Location, name, slip characteristics, and a reference to source publications are provided for database entries.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0