Reply to the discussion by F. Gutiérrez, P. Lucha, J. Guerrero, M. Gutiérrez and D. Carbonel on the article ‘Paleoseismological analysis of an intraplate extensional structure: the Concud fault (Iberian Chain, eastern Spain)’
This reply tackles the three main points of discussion of the comment, carefully distinguishing those constructive contributions from the potentially confusing ones. (1) We accept that we should have utilised previously published datings of the middle terrace, even if we consider them to be less reliable than the used ones, so broadening the slip-rate range from 0.23–0.33 mm/y to 0.16–0.33 mm/y. Nevertheless, their revision of the post-middle terrace slip rate charges us two contradictory imputations: that we underestimate the throw in a 25% (36 m vs. 47 m) and that this results in ‘anomalously high slip rates’. We analyse the adduced error, and we confirm our initial estimate based on our more reliable stratigraphic marker, so rejecting both criticisms. (2) About the paleoseismological interpretation at Los Baños trench, we appreciate the hint about displacement partitioning on the master fault and in our hypothetical blind normal fault during the last three events; however, such partitioning was already considered in our retrodeformation analysis. We believe that there is enough evidence for the two events questioned by the commenters, as well as for the interpretation of the colluvial wedge that evidences one of them. (3) With respect to the fault affecting the youngest terrace: (a) both traces exposed on orthogonal road-cut slopes belong to the same normal fault, and we prove it by means of basic structural constructions, and (b) it does not exhibit any feature suggesting a non-tectonic origin, as the commenters state.