Seismogenesis in Central Apennines, Italy: an integrated analysis of minor earthquake sequences and structural data in the Amatrice-Campotosto area

We present a seismotectonic study of the Amatrice-Campotosto area (Central Italy) based on an integrated analysis of minor earthquake sequences, geological data and crustal rheology. The area has been affected by three small-magnitude seismic sequences: August 1992 (M=3.9), June 1994 (M=3.7) and October 1996 (M=4.0). The hypocentral locations and fault plane solutions of the 1996 sequence are based on original data; the seismological features of the 1992 and 1994 sequences are summarised from literature. The active WSWdipping Mt. Gorzano normal fault is interpreted as the common seismogenic structure for the three analysed sequences. The mean state of stress obtained by inversion of focal mechanisms (WSW-ENE-trending deviatoric tension) is comparable to that responsible for finite Quaternary displacement, showing that the stress field has not changed since the onset of extensional tectonics. Available morphotectonic data integrated with original structural data show that the Mt. Gorzano Fault extends for ~28 km along strike. The along-strike displacement profile is typical of an isolated fault, without significant internal segmentation. The strong evidence of late Quaternary activity in the southern part of the fault (with lower displacement gradient) is explained in this work in terms of displacement profile readjustment within a fault unable to grow further laterally. The depth distribution of seismicity and the crustal rheology yield a thickness of ~15 km for the brittle layer. An area of ~530 km2 is estimated for the entire Mt. Gorzano Fault surface. In historical times, the northern portion of the fault was probably activated during the 1639 Amatrice earthquake (I = X, M~ 6.3), but this is not the largest event we expect on the fault. We propose that a large earthquake might activate the entire 28 km long Mt. Gorzano Fault, with an expected Mmax up to 6.7

Progress in creating a joint research agenda that allows networked long-term socio-ecological research in southern South America : addressing crucial technological and human capacity gaps limiting its application in Chile and Argentina

Since 1980, more than 40 countries have implemented long-term ecological research (LTER) programs, which have shown their power to affect advances in basic science to understand the natural world at meaningful temporal and spatial scales and also help link research with socially relevant outcomes. Recently, a disciplinary paradigmatic shift has integrated the human dimensions of ecosystems, leading to a long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) framework to address the world's current environmental challenges. A global gap in LTER/LTSER only exists in the latitudinal range of 40–60°S, corresponding to Argentina and Chile's temperate/sub-Antarctic biome. A team of Chilean, Argentine and US researchers has participated in an ongoing dialogue to define not only conceptual, but also practical barriers limiting LTER/LTSER in southern South America. We have found a number of existing long-term research sites and platforms throughout the region, but at the same time it has been concluded an agenda is needed to create and implement further training courses for students, postdoctoral fellows and young scientists, particularly in the areas of data and information management systems. Since LTER/LTSER efforts in Chile and Argentina are incipient, instituting such courses now will enhance human and technical capacity of the natural science and resource community to improve the collection, storage, analysis and dissemination of information in emerging LTER/LTSER platforms. In turn, having this capacity, as well as the ongoing formalization of LTER/LTSER programs at national levels, will allow the enhancement of crucial collaborations and comparisons between long-term research programs within the region and between hemispheres and continents. For Spanish version of the entire article, see Online Supporting Information (Appendix S1).Desde 1980, más de cuarenta países han implementado programas de Investigación Ecológica a Largo Plazo (LTER por sus siglas en inglés), los cuales han mostrado su capacidad para influir sobre los avances en las ciencias básicas que permiten entender el mundo natural en escalas temporales y espaciales significativas, y también ayudar a enfocar la investigación hacia estudios socialmente relevantes. Recientemente, gracias a un cambio de paradigma en la disciplina, se integró también la dimensión humana de los ecosistemas, llevándola a un marco conceptual de Investigación Socio-Ecológica a Largo Plazo (LTSER por sus siglas en inglés) para enfrentar los desafíos medio-ambientales del mundo actual. Existe un vacío global en LTER/LTSER en el rango latitudinal de 40–60°S, correspondiente a los biomas templados/subantárticos de Argentina y Chile. Un equipo de investigadores chilenos, argentinos y estadounidenses ha trabajado por varios años para definir cuáles son la barreras que actualmente limitan la creación de una Red de LTER/LTSER en el sur de Sudamérica, no solamente en términos conceptuales, sino también a nivel práctico. Existe un buen número de sitios de investigación a largo plazo en la región, pero también concluimos que es necesario crear e implementar más cursos de capacitación para estudiantes, investigadores post-doctorales y jóvenes científicos, particularmente en las áreas de sistemas de manejo de datos e información. Considerando que los esfuerzos LTER/LTSER en Chile y Argentina son incipientes, este tipo de cursos podría mejorar la capacidad humana y técnica en la comunidad de las ciencias y los recursos naturales, así como mejorar los procesos de recolección, almacenamiento, análisis y difusión de la información. A su vez, la formalización de cursos de programas LTER/LTSER a nivel nacional para adquirir dicha capacidad de manejo de la información, permitirá un fortalecimiento crucial de las colaboraciones y comparaciones entre programas de investigación a largo plazo dentro de la región, y entre hemisferios y continentes. La versión en castellano del artículo se encuentra disponible en forma digital como Online Supporting Information S1.Fil: Anderson, Chistopher B. University of North Texas. Department of Biological Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Celis-Diez, Juan Luis. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Escuela de Agronomía; ChileFil: Bond, Barbara J.H.G. Oregon State University. Andrews Forest Long-Term Ecological Research Site. Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; Estados UnidosFil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; ArgentinaFil: Little, Christian. Universidad Austral de Chile. Facultad de Ciencias. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Evolución; Chile. Fundación Centro de los Bosques Nativos FORECOS; ChileFil: Armesto, Juan J. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Escuela de Agronomía; ChileFil: Ghersa, Claudio Marco. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Austin, Amy Theresa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Schlichter, Tomas Miguel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche. Grupo de Ecología Forestal; ArgentinaFil: Lara, Antonio. Fundación Centro de los Bosques Nativos FORECOS; Chile. Universidad Austral de Chile. Facultad de Ciencias Forestales y Recursos Naturales. Instituto de Silvicultura; ChileFil: Carmona, Martin. Universidad de Chile. Instituto de Ecologıa y Biodiversidad; ChileFil: Chaneton, Enrique Jose. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomia. Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente; ArgentinaFil: Gutierrez, Julio R. Universidad de La Serena. Departamento de Biología. Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad. Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Aridas; ChileFil: Rozzi, Ricardo. Universidad de La Serena. Departamento de Biología. Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad; ChileFil: Vanderbilt, Kristin University of New Mexico. Department of Biology. Sevilleta Long-Term Ecological Research Site; Estados UnidosFil: Oyarce, Guillermo University of North Texas. Library and Information Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Fernandez, Roberto J. University of North Texas, Department of Biological Sciences; Estados Unido

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being(1,2), addressing the global biodiversity crisis(3) still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature's diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever(4). Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature's values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)(5) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals(6), predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature(7). Arguably, a 'values crisis' underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change(8), pandemic emergence(9) and socio-environmental injustices(10). On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature's diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions(7,11). Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being, addressing the global biodiversity crisis still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, pandemic emergence and socio-environmental injustices. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures

Gli interventi psicosociali in emergenza: un'analisi teorica e operativa del modello europeo e internazionale

This article examines the complex operational development and the purposes of the psychosocial intervention in the occurrence of major disasters and, therefore, in emergency conditions. It lays the foundations for a reflection on the different dynamics and facets that determine the psychosocial intervention, deepening the requirements for the constitution of a team of trained psychologists and professionals who, in all contexts of crisis and emergency, are able to provide support to the victims, to themselves and to the colleagues directly or indirectly involved in the event. Having a clear popularizing purpose, the article ends with a new conceptualization of the operational realities and the different intervention protocols in an emergency situation, considering the detailed directions emerging from the various institutional panels