See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332353387

Active deformation in Algeria from continuous GPS measurements

Article  in  Geophysical Journal International · April 2019

DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggz035

CITATIONS READS

31 856

3 authors, including:

Amina Bougrine Eric Calais

Center for Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics Geophysics Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris
4 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS    318 PUBLICATIONS   13,360 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

S2RHAI View project

GNSS Atmospheric Remote Sensing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric Calais on 11 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geophys. J. Int. (2019) 217, 572–588 doi: 10.1093/gji/ggz035
Advance Access publication 2019 January 16
GJI Geodynamics and tectonics

Active deformation in Algeria from continuous GPS measurements

Amina Bougrine,1 Abdel Karim Yelles-Chaouche1 and Eric Calais2

1 Centre de Recherche en Astronomie, Astrophysique et Géophysique (CRAAG), Bouzareah, Algiers, Algeria. E-mail: bougrine.am@gmail.com
2 Ecole normale supérieure, Dept. of Geosciences, Université PSL, Paris, France

Accepted 2019 January 15. Received 2018 December 17; in original form 2018 September 12

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

SUMMARY
The present-day kinematics of plate boundary deformation in the western Mediterranean is
now well described by space geodetic measurements, except for the Algeria–Tunisia part of
north Africa where information is still lacking. Yet, that portion of the Nubia–Eurasia Plate
boundary likely concentrates most of the oblique plate convergence, with an on-going debate on
the role of offshore versus on-land active—and seismogenic—structures. Here we use 10 yr of
continuous GPS data from the Algerian REGAT network to compute the first geodetic velocity
field in Algeria. In the west, velocities are uniform and collinear to the plate convergence trend,
with a sharp gradient at the coast, while in the east they indicate that deformation involves
a broader region. Using a simple block kinematic approach, we show that the velocities are
consistent with the presence of an active, reverse, offshore fault system that runs along the toe
of the Algerian margin, with a slip rate decreasing from west to east. In the western half of
Algeria, the GPS data do not require additional faults system on-land. In the eastern half, GPS
velocities require an E–W-trending strike-slip fault separating two blocks that accounts for
the strike-slip component of the overall plate motion. We also observe significant shortening
between the Saharan platform and the Aures range in southeastern Algeria. This first-order
description of the Eurasia–Nubia oblique convergence in Algeria provides new guidelines
for seismic hazard assessment but still requires denser geodetic measurements over this vast
territory.
Key words: Plate motions; Space geodetic surveys; Africa; Continental tectonics: compres-
sional.

direct information on present-day strain distribution is limited, as

1 I N T RO D U C T I O N
The Western Mediterranean encompasses a segment of the bound-
ary between the Nubia and Eurasia plates (Fig. 1) along which their
relative motion transitions from strike-slip in the west along the
Azores-Gloria transform fault system, to oblique convergence in
the east (Fig. 2). Present-day kinematic models all show a counter-
clockwise rotation of Nubia with respect to Eurasia, resulting in a
NW–SE convergence oblique to the direction of the plate boundary,
with a rate increasing from 2–4 mm yr−1 in Gibraltar to 3–8 mm yr−1
in the Sicily Strait (Nocquet 2012). The lack of discernable relative
motion between most of Iberia, the Balearic Islands, Sardinia, Cor-
sica and stable Eurasia, together with the distribution of seismicity,
indicates that this convergence must be accommodated by active
deformation in North Africa, possibly both onshore and/or offshore
(Nocquet & Calais 2004; Serpelloni et al. 2007).
In the Gibraltar area, Global Positioning System (GPS) measure-
ments show that active deformation involves the southwestern part
of the Betic Mountains of southern Spain, the Alboran Sea, and the
Rif Mountains of Morocco (Fadil et al. 2006; Vernant et al. 2010;
Koulali et al. 2011). Further east in Algeria and Tunisia, however,
only two episodic GPS stations along the Algerian coast have de-
livered velocities, one in Arzew, the other in Algiers (Serpelloni
et al. 2007). There, earthquake focal mechanism and geological
investigations, both on-land and offshore, indicate that active de-
formation is concentrated within a narrow, ∼100-km-wide region,
with two competing interpretations. For some, this region is a trans-
pressional system, with large east–west trending strike-slip faults
in western and eastern Algeria connected via a restraining bend
through the Tell Atlas (Meghraoui & Pondrelli 2012). In this view,
the Nubia–Eurasia oblique convergence is partitioned solely by on-
shore fault systems. For others, significant shortening occurs off-
shore, at the toe of the Algerian margin, as evidenced by seismic
reflection and gravity data (Domzig et al. 2006; Yelles et al. 2009;
Leprêtre et al. 2013; Hamai et al. 2015; Arab et al. 2016). In that
view, the North Algerian margin is undergoing a recent (Quaternary)
compressional reactivation and inversion. These opposing views, in
addition to their different mechanisms—strike-slip in Meghraoui
& Pondrelli (2012) versus convergence in Domzig et al. (2006)—
have drastically different implications for regional seismic hazard
assessment.

572 
C The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society.

Here, we use continuous GPS data from the Algerian REGAT
(REseau Gps de l’ATlas) geodetic network to directly determine
the spatial distribution of deformation along the Nubia–Eurasia
(NU–EU) Plate boundary along most of its trace in the Western
Mediterranean. We show that the data is best fit by a simple kine-
matic model where the Nubia–Eurasia oblique convergence is ac-
commodated mostly by offshore compression in the western half
of Algeria, and, in its eastern half, by onshore strike-slip combined
with shortening both offshore as in the west, and inland across the
Atlas domain.
2 TECTONIC SETTING
The NU–EU Plate boundary in northern Algeria is marked by sig-
nificant crustal seismicity, with some large events such as the 1980,
Mw 7.3 El Asnam (Ouyed et al. 1981; Philip & Meghraoui 1983;
Yielding et al. 1989), the 1985, MS 6.0 Constantine (Bounif et al.
1987) and the 2003, Mw 6.8 Boumerdes (Yelles et al. 2003) earth-
quakes (Fig. 1). Seismicity in western Algeria is confined to a nar-
row stripe within ∼100 km of the coastline that coincides with the
Tell Atlas. To the east, seismicity is more broadly distributed, with
moderate earthquakes recorded from the coastline to the southern
confines of the Saharan Atlas (Bahrouni et al. 2013). The 1980 El
Asnam earthquake highlighted the hazard posed by on-land faults,
but the 2003 Boumerdes event showed that the continental margin
was also involved in the plate boundary deformation system. A
number of historical earthquakes also had their epicentres offshore,
such as the 1365 (I=X, Algiers), the 1856 (I=VIII, Djijelli) and
1891 (I=IX, Gouraya) events, which triggered local tsunamis and
coastal uplift (Harbi et al. 2007; Maouche et al. 2009).
Earthquake focal mechanisms in northern Algeria show a fairly
homogeneous pattern of pure reverse faulting on SW–NE- to WSW–
ENE-directed faults (Buforn et al. 2004; Stich et al. 2006) consistent
with the overall convergence direction between the NU and EU
plates (Fig. 2). Stich et al. (2010) noticed a rotation of the shortening
direction from ∼NNW–SSE in the east to ∼NW–SE in the west
that may correspond to the progressive counter-clockwise rotation,
from east to west, of the NU/EU convergence direction. We shall
see below that this may also result from the partitioning of the
oblique convergence, in the eastern half of Algeria, between pure
convergence offshore and strike-slip on land. Strike-slip events have
indeed been documented in the eastern Tell Atlas, for instance the
2006, M 5.2, Lâlam-Bejaia and the 1985, M 5.8, Constantine events
(Beldjoudi et al. 2009).
The mapping of active faults matches the distribution of seismic-
ity. In western Algeria, active faulting is concentrated within the
Tell Atlas, with NE–SW-trending, right-stepping en-échelon folds
and faults (Meghraoui et al. 1986), such as the one that bounds the
Cheliff Basin and ruptured during the 1980 El Asnam earthquake.
Meghraoui & Pondrelli (2012) interpreted the western Tell Atlas
as a restraining bend connecting two strike-slip fault systems, the
onshore continuation of the Yusuf fault in the Alboran Sea in the
west, and two major east–west strike-slip faults to the east, one a few
kilometres offshore Algiers, the other corresponding to the contin-
uation of the Ghardimaou strike-slip fault from Tunisia (Bahrouni
et al. 2013) into Algeria. In this view, shortening on offshore reverse
faults (see below) plays no role in accommodating NU–EU Plate
convergence in Algeria.
In eastern Algeria, active faulting concerns a much broader area
(Meghraoui & Pondrelli 2012; Bahrouni et al. 2013; Rabaute &
Chamot-Rooke 2014) and includes a component of right-lateral
Active deformation in Algeria from GPS 573
strike slip on EW–trending faults, such as the one along which the
Guelma pull-apart basin is currently forming (Harbi et al. 1999;
Maouche et al. 2013). Active faulting is mapped over a broad area
that covers the Aurès Mountains and the southern Atlas along its
boundary with the stable Sahara platform, mapped by Ben Hassen
et al. (2014) as the Gafsa right-lateral transpressive fault zone.
A recent advance in our understanding of active deformation in
Algeria results from exhaustive bathymetric mapping and seismic
reflection acquisitions across the Algerian margin following the
2003 Boumerdes earthquake (Deverchère 2005). The data shows a
series of crustal-scale reverse faults that emerge at the toe of the
Algerian continental margin, at least from longitude ∼1◦ E eastward
(Domzig et al. 2006; Yelles et al. 2009; Medaouri et al. 2014; Hamai
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019
et al. 2015; Arab et al. 2016; Aidi et al. 2018). This offshore struc-
ture appears to connect westward with the active transpressional
Yusuf fault that cuts through the Alboran Sea, as shown by Giaco-
nia et al. (2015, see their fig. 14), and to the east with the reverse
faults mapped in the Sardinia Channel (Nicolich 1989; Tricart et al.
1994).
That the North African margin is currently overthrusting the
Algerian oceanic basin is in agreement with the current state of
isostatic disequilibrium of the margin, which can be explained by
a lithospheric flexure involving of a crustal-scale inversion of the
margin along a south-dipping reverse fault system (Hamai et al.
2015). Some have proposed that this setting may represent the onset
of the subduction of the Mediterranean basin oceanic lithosphere
under northern Africa (Auzende et al. 1975; Mauffret 2007).
3 G P S D ATA A N D P R O C E S S I N G
We use data from the 54 continuous GPS stations that constitute the
Algerian REGAT network, in operation since 2007. The stations
are distributed along the 1200-km-long Algerian coast and 300 km
inland, with a mean inter-site distance of 100 km except for one
station located much further south on the Saharan platform, in
Tamanrasset. The REGAT network therefore encompasses the entire
seismically active region of northern Algeria.
We process data from REGAT stations together with 34 sites from
the International GNSS Service (IGS) located in Europe and Africa
using the GAMIT-GLOBK software package (Herring et al. 2015).
We use double-difference phase measurements to solve for station
coordinates, satellite state vectors, seven daily tropospheric delay
parameters per site, two parameters for horizontal tropospheric gra-
dients and phase ambiguities using final satellite orbits from the In-
ternational GNSS Service (IGS), Earth orientation parameters from
the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS), applying correc-
tions for solid-earth tides, polar tides, time-variable ocean loading
following the IERS conventions 2010 (Petit & Luzum 2010) and
antenna phase-centre variations using the latest IGS tables (Schmid
et al. 2007).
We identify discontinuities or offsets caused by changes in the
instrumentation or to earthquakes by visually inspecting daily po-
sition time-series. We combine the regional loosely constrained
daily solutions with global daily solutions for the whole IGS net-
work available from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology IGS
Data Analysis Center into weekly position solutions. This helps
improve signal resolution over the noise level and allows us to
optimally tie our solution to the International Terrestrial Reference
Frame (ITRF2014) (Altamimi et al. 2016). We finally combine these
weekly solutions into a single position/velocity solution, which we
tie to the ITRF by minimizing position and velocity deviations
574 A. Bougrine, A. K. Yelles-Chaouche and E. Calais

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

Figure 1. Seismotectonic map of northern Algeria. Bathymetry and topography are from ETOPO1 Global relief (www.ngdc.noaa.gov). Solid black lines show
the major tectonic features from Rabaute & Chamot-Rooke (2014). Red dots show instrumental seismicity from the CRAAG catalogue (M > 3, 01/2002
to 12/2016). Earthquakes focal mechanisms are from Yelles-Chaouche et al. (2017). Inset shows the broader Western Mediterranean region with simplified
Eurasia–Nubia Plate boundary from Bird (2003). K = Kabylie. The dashed reverse fault offshore western Algeria is the surface projection of the blind reverse
faults mapped by Arab et al. (2016).

EURASIAN PLATE
GEODETIC 5mm/yr
Altamimi et al., 2017
Nocquet et al., 2006
Calais et al., 2003
This work
39˚ 40˚

Fa
ia ul
Glor t
Azores Sy
ste
34˚ m
GEOLOGIC 5mm/yr
Argus et al., 2011
DeMets et al., 2015 NUBIAN PLATE
-20˚ -10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚

Figure 2. Predicted velocities along the Eurasia–Nubia Plate boundary (simplified trace from Bird 2003) according to the plate angular velocities shown on
Fig. 3.
 Active deformation in Algeria from GPS 575

Table 1. Angular velocities describing the Nubia–Eurasia relative plate motion. Geological (3.16 Myr averages) and geodetic (present-day) estimates are
reported.
Data set Lat. (◦ ) Lon. (◦ ) Rate 95 per cent conf. err. ell. σ -Rate

(deg Ma–1 ) Semi-maj. Semi-min. azim. (deg Ma–1 )

Geological
Argus et al. (2011) 21.60 −20.40 0.131 3.1 1.9 211.59 0.001
DeMets et al. (2015) 17.59 −20.96 0.123 9.3 1.0 47.5 0.007
Geodetic
Calais et al. (2003) −10.30 −27.70 0.063 8.3 3.3 52.0 0.004
Nocquet et al. (2006) −5.03 −20.43 0.060 2.6 1.7 56.0 0.001
Altamimi et al. (2017) −10.38 −24.28 0.057 4.0 2.7 4.1 0.001
This work −7.11 −23.89 0.058 5.5 1.2 47.8 0.001

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

from the globally distributed set of core IGS reference sites com-
mon to our solution via a 12-parameter Helmert transformation. -30 ˚ -20˚
We account for time-correlated noise at continuous sites using the
First-Order Gauss-Markov Extrapolation (FOGMEx) algorithm of Argus et al., 2011
Herring (2003) in order to obtain realistic velocity uncertainties.
Saria et al. (2013), for instance, show that this algorithm provides 20˚
velocity uncertainties similar to the ones obtained from a formal es- DeMets et al., 2015
timation of white and flicker noise using the commonly used CATS
software (Williams 2003). The resulting velocity field is provided
in Table S1.

10˚

4 R E S U LT I N G V E L O C I T Y F I E L D
Among the 54 REGAT sites processed here, 12 unfortunately show
time-series with non-linear excursions that are unlikely tectonic in
origin and velocities that are significantly different from their near-
est neighbors (sites AKET, CAEH, CCOL, CKAL, CKTS, EBGR,
EBNH, EKMS, OBBL, OJGS, OSDA and OTSS). Such time-series
are correlated with specific site locations (e.g. active dams) or poor
monument construction. We will not consider them further below.
The 42 remaining sites show clean, linear time-series with a mean
long-term weighted RMS ∼1.5 mm. Velocity uncertainties decrease
as a function of observation time span to reach 0.2 mm yr−1 (one
standard deviation) for the oldest stations, which have close to 10 yr
of continuous data, such as ABZH for instance (Fig. 4).
Figs 5(a) and (b) show velocities in EU-fixed and NU-fixed
frames, respectively, together with model boundary velocities. Ve-
locities at all the solution sites (REGAT plus IGS) are provided in
Table S1. We define the EU and NU frame by minimizing veloci-
ties at 65 sites with well-determined velocities, 58 located on stable
Eurasia, 7 on stable Nubia (sites indicated by a star in Table S1).
Fig. 3 and Table 1 compares our NU–EU angular velocity with re-
cent geodetic (Calais et al. 2003; Nocquet et al. 2006; Altamimi
et al. 2017) and geological (Argus et al. 2011; DeMets et al. 2015)
estimates. We find an Euler pole that is consistent with previously
published geodetic poles, but inconsistent with the geological ones,
located about 2500 km to the north, as previously recognized by
Calais et al. (2003).
Velocities in the study area shows oblique convergence between
EU and NU, consistent with the seismological and tectonic observa-
tions. In the EU frame (Fig. 5a), we observe velocities at the coast
that decrease progressively from west (maximum 2.5 mm yr−1 at
site OLHC) to east (close to zero at site CMAR). This is a first
indication that the EU–NU convergence may be accommodated by
offshore structures in western Algeria, but mostly on-land in the
eastern half of the country.
0˚
Nocquet et al., 2006
Calais et al.,
2003 This work
-10˚
Altamimi
et al., 2017
Figure 3. Euler pole locations for Nubia–Eurasia, with their at 95 per cent
confidence ellipse (see also Table 1), comparing the recent geological es-
timates of Argus et al. (2011) and DeMets et al. (2015) with the geodetic
estimates of Calais et al. (2003), Nocquet et al. (2006), Altamimi et al.
(2017) and this work. The corresponding predicted velocities along the
Nubia–Eurasia Plate boundary are shown on Fig. 2.
In the western part of the study area, which encompasses the west-
ern Tell Atlas and western High Plateaus, velocities are collinear
with the NW–SE Nubia motion directed N50W towards Eurasia,
with magnitudes of about 3 mm yr−1 , similar to those predicted by
the rigid EU–NU Plate motion. Deformation is therefore concen-
trated in a narrow coastal region, while the western High Plateaus
appear to belong to stable Nubia. This is also readily visible in the
NU-fixed frame (Fig. 5b), which shows small residual velocities at
sites located in the western High Plateaus where the weighted rms
of the residuals is 0.8 mm yr−1 .
East of longitude ∼3◦ E, velocities at sites located within about
50 km of the coast deviate from the NU–EU Plate motion direction,
with a clockwise rotation (Fig. 5a). This pattern is indicative of
576 A. Bougrine, A. K. Yelles-Chaouche and E. Calais
Figure 4. Position time-series at sites ABZH (Algiers) and ADCK (Djelfa, Saharan Atlas) after removal of a linear regression. Their location is provided on
Fig. 5(b).
strike-slip faulting, as described in detail below. To the south, ve-
locities remain parallel to the NU–EU Plate motion, but with lower
magnitudes, indicating shortening within the High Atlas and/or be-
tween this region and stable Nubia, as shown when velocities are
expressed in the NU-fixed frame (Fig. 5b).
5 2-D ELASTIC STRAIN
A C C U M U L AT I O N M O D E L S
We further quantify these observations by building 2-D models of
elastic strain accumulation on locked faults embedded in an elastic
half-space using the classic back-slip approach of Savage (1983),
further described in Segall (2010). We seek to fit the simplest fault
model to the velocity observations by varying fault dip, locking
depth, fault location and slip rate using the weighted root mean
square (WRMS) of the residuals as a measure of the goodness of
fit:
 n 2 2 1/2
ri /σi
W R M S = i=1 n 2
, (1)
i=1 1/σi
where r is the model residual, σ the standard error of the observed
velocity and n the number of observations. These models do not
reflect the details of active faulting in Algeria, but are meant to help
us determine which faults are the major contributors to present-
day deformation and to provide guidelines for the block models
described in the next section.
We project the east and north velocity components onto directions
that are parallel and perpendicular to three profiles, as shown on
Figs 5(a) and 6. The western and central profiles WW’ and CC’
have an azimuth of N140◦ E, parallel to the NU–EU Plate motion
and to the observed GPS velocities in this region. They are meant
to help us identify the fault(s) responsible for the plate motion-
parallel shortening readily visible in the velocity field. The eastern
profile EE’, perpendicular to the Algerian coast, is meant to capture
the strike-slip component of motion suspected from the clockwise
rotation of velocities near the coast.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019
The western profile (Fig. 6a), shows 3.5 mm yr−1 of pure
shortening between stable Nubia and site ALME on stable Eura-
sia. The distribution of the parallel-velocities along the profile
can be explained by a locked reverse fault located offshore. We
find that the data are best fit with a fault dipping 40◦ S, with a
10 km locking depth, and a surface trace located 140 km off-
shore within the Alboran basin. Model slip rate on this offshore
reverse fault, which could correspond to the Alboran ridge fault,
is 5 mm yr−1 . Note that this corresponds, given the fault dip,
to a horizontal velocity of 3.8 mm yr−1 . Profile-perpendicular
velocities, much smaller, show at most 1 mm yr−1 of slip on
a vertical strike-slip fault located inland, locked to a depth of
15 km.
The central profile (Fig. 6b) shows a combination of profile-
parallel and profile-perpendicular velocities. Profile-parallel veloc-
ities are well fit by a reverse fault with 40◦ S dip, a 10 km locking
depth, a surface trace located 10 km offshore, close to the mar-
gin toe. Slip rate on this reverse fault is 5.5 mm yr−1 (horizontal
velocity of 4.2 mm yr−1 ). It could correspond to the reverse fault-
ing system identified offshore by recent seismic reflection profiles
(Domzig et al. 2006; Yelles et al. 2009). The velocity gradient of
the profile-perpendicular velocities does not coincide with that of
the profile-parallel ones, hence requiring a second fault. We find
that the profile-perpendicular velocities are well fit by a vertical
strike-slip fault locked to a depth of 15 km with a 1.3 mm yr−1
slip rate. Its surface trace, located 50 km inland, corresponds to
the Ghardimaou fault in Tunisia (Bahrouni et al. 2013), which ex-
tends westward along-strike as the North Constantine fault in Alge-
ria (Coiffait et al. 1992; Meghraoui & Pondrelli 2012; Rabaute &
Chamot-Rooke 2014). In the following, we will call this right-lateral
strike-slip the ‘Ghardimaou—North Constantine’ (GNC) fault
(Fig. 1).
The eastern profile (Fig. 6c) shows profile-perpendicular veloc-
ities that are well fit by slip on the eastward continuation of the
GNC strike-slip fault mentioned above, with a 15 km locking depth
and a 2.6 mm yr−1 slip rate. Profile-parallel velocities can be fit
by a reverse fault dipping 40◦ S that corresponds to the eastward
 Active deformation in Algeria from GPS 577

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

Figure 5. GPS velocities shown with respect to Eurasia (top) and Nubia (bottom). Bathymetry and topography are from ETOPO1 1-min Global relief
(www.ngdc.noaa.gov). Major tectonic features are from Rabaute & Chamot-Rooke (2014). Error ellipses are 95 per cent confidence. Dashed lines are the three
profiles onto which the velocity profiles are projected, see Fig. 6. Colour-coding of the velocities indicates the profile to which they belong (blue = west, green
= centre, red = east). Top/bottom arrows show the predicted NU–EU velocities from this work.

continuation of the margin toe reverse fault mentioned for the cen-
tral profile, with a 2.6 mm yr−1 slip rate (horizontal velocity of
2.0 mm yr−1 ).
This simple, 2-D, modelling exercise shows that GPS velocities
in northern Algeria are well explained, to first order, by elastic strain
accumulation on a small number of major faults: an offshore fault
along the entire continental margin and an on-land strike-slip fault
in the eastern part of the study area. They both correspond to active
tectonic structures identified in the geology (Bounif et al. 1987;
Harbi et al. 1999; Yelles et al. 2004).
578 A. Bougrine, A. K. Yelles-Chaouche and E. Calais

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

Figure 6. Projections of GPS velocities along the three profiles shown on Fig. 5 (top panel). Error bars are 2σ . Solid lines show best-fitting elastic models.
Bottom panels show the bathymetry and topography along the profiles together with the faults used in the models.

Figure 7. Block geometries tested in models 1–6 with the fault and block names used in the text.

6 BLOCK MODELLING which includes information from regional seismotectonic and geo-
logical studies to date, and the results from the 2-D models described
A proper kinematic interpretation of the GPS velocities requires
above. Offshore faults in the model are locked down to a depth of
accounting for both strain accumulation on locked faults and rigid
10 km and dip 40◦ S, on-land faults are locked to 15 km and are
block rotations. To do so, we use the approach of Meade & Loveless
vertical for strike-slip faults or dip 45◦ for reverse faults.
(2009) and their code ‘Blocks’, which models GPS velocities as a
We run a series of models starting from the simplest possible,
sum of rigid rotations of tectonic blocks and strain accumulation
with a two-plate geometry that we progressively complexify by
on the block-bounding faults. We define block boundaries using
adding new plates, as required by the data. The models are run—
earthquake locations from the CRAAG seismicity catalogue, the
and their statistics computed—using velocities at all sites on the EU
seismotectonic compilation of Rabaute & Chamot-Rooke (2014),
and NU plates, not only those located in Algeria. The geometry of
 Active deformation in Algeria from GPS 579

38.0˚ 38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚ 0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚

36.0˚ 36.0˚

34.0˚ 34.0˚

5 mm/yr 5 mm/yr
mm/yr mm/yr
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

dip−slip strike−slip

38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚
R = 73.5%
mu = −0.0, std = 0.7 mm/yr mu = 0.2, std = 1.2 mm/yr
2.3 30 30
2.2
2.2 2.3
2.2
36.0˚
2.2 2.2
2.2 2.1 20 20

percentage
10 10
34.0˚

5 mm/yr
0 0
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
EW residual (mm/yr) NS residual (mm/yr)

Figure 8. Block model 0. Coloured lines represent the fault geometry tested. (a) Model dip-slip rates resolved along fault dip. (b) Model strike-slip rates. (c)
Residual (observed minus modelled) velocities shown with black arrows; red arrows show model horizontal displacements along block-bounding faults w.r.t.
the block located north of the fault. (d) Histograms of the east and nord velocity residuals, x-axis in mm yr−1 . Solid black lines shows the corresponding normal
distribution with mean (mu) and standard deviation (std), both in mm yr−1 , indicated above each panel.

the models tested, from number 0 to 6, is shown on Fig. 7, with the where χ p21 and χ p22 are the chi-square statistics of two models with
fault and block names used in the text. Each model fit to the data is p1 and p2 degrees of freedom, respectively. We compare this ex-
quantified by its χ 2 : perimental F-ratio to the expected value of a F(p1 − p2 , p1 ) dis-
tribution for a given risk level α per cent (or a 100 − α per cent
n  obs 2
confidence level) that the null hypothesis (the decrease in χ 2 is
vi − vimod
χ2 = , (2) not significant) can be rejected. We set the acceptable signifi-
σi2
i=1 cance level to 99 per cent, that is a probability of rejection less than
1 per cent.
where n is the number of observations, vobs and vmod the observed Model 0 (Fig. 8) is meant to test the plate boundary geometry
and modeled velocities and σ the standard error of the observed proposed by Meghraoui & Pondrelli (2012), where the EU–NU
velocities. We also use the variance reduction of the model defined Plate boundary in Algeria consists of a restraining bend, with most
as: of the plate motion accommodated on-land. Its variance reduction
is 74 per cent, with velocity residuals that reach up to 2 mm yr−1 ,
n  2
viobs − vimod whose distribution does not follow a normal distribution, in par-
R =1− i=1
n  obs 2 . (3) ticular in the north component. The geometry tested here results
i=1 vi
in 2.2–2.3 mm yr−1 of right-lateral strike-slip on east–west trend-
ing faults, which would result in significant extension in the transfer
The R values quoted below use the GPS velocities in a EU-fixed
zone between the central and eastern segments (around 5◦ W), which
frame. Table S2 shows variance reductions in a NU-fixed frame and
is not observed.
in ITRF, for comparison.
Model 1 (Fig. 9) is an alternate end-member case where the NU–
Since model χ 2 ’s always improve when adding plates, that is
EU relative plate motion is entirely accommodated by an offshore
free parameters, we test the significance of the decrease in χ 2 from
reverse fault along the Algerian margin. Its variance reduction is
a model with fewer plates to a model with more plates using the
79 per cent, with velocity residuals that are less than 1 mm yr−1
F-ratio statistics (e.g. Stein & Gordon 1984) given by:
over most of the study area and follow a normal distribution. Model
 2  fit to the data is slightly better than in model 0 in the western part
χ p1 − χ p22 / ( p1 − p2 ) of the domain, but worse in the eastern part, where a systematic
F= , (4)
χ p22 / p2
580 A. Bougrine, A. K. Yelles-Chaouche and E. Calais

38.0˚ 38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚ 0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚

36.0˚ 36.0˚

34.0˚ 34.0˚

5 mm/yr 5 mm/yr
mm/yr mm/yr
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
dip−slip strike−slip

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚
R = 78.62%
3.3
3.2 mu = −0.1, std = 1.0 mm/yr mu = 0.0, std = 0.7 mm/yr
3.1 30 30
3.0
3.0
2.9
36.0˚
2.9
20 20

percentage
10 10
34.0˚

5 mm/yr
0 0
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
EW residual (mm/yr) NS residual (mm/yr)

Figure 9. Block model 1: Same caption as on Fig. 8.

38.0˚ 38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚ 0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚

36.0˚ 36.0˚

34.0˚ 34.0˚

5 mm/yr 5 mm/yr
mm/yr mm/yr
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
dip−slip strike−slip

38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚
R = 91.11%
3.1
2.7 mu = −0.0, std = 0.5 mm/yr mu = 0.0, std = 0.6 mm/yr
2.3 30 30
4.0
3.9
2.7 2.7 2.7
3.9 2.7
36.0˚
3.8
20 20
percentage

10 10
34.0˚

5 mm/yr
0 0
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
EW residual (mm/yr) NS residual (mm/yr)

Figure 10. Block model 2: Same caption as on Fig. 8.

clockwise rotation is apparent. This residual rotation indicates that margin, as shown in the seismic surveys mentioned above, and on-
at least one additional block is needed to fit the data. land in the eastern part of the study area, as proposed by Meghraoui
Model 2 (Fig. 10) is a hybrid of the previous ones, where the EU– & Pondrelli (2012). This model individualizes an East Tell Atlas
NU Plate motion is accommodated both offshore along the Algerian block separated from the Nubian Plate by the GNC right-lateral
 Active deformation in Algeria from GPS 581

38.0˚ 38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚ 0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚

36.0˚ 36.0˚

34.0˚ 34.0˚

5 mm/yr 5 mm/yr
mm/yr mm/yr
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
dip−slip strike−slip

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚
R = 94.34%
1.5
1.5 mu = −0.0, std = 0.5 mm/yr mu = −0.0, std = 0.4 mm/yr
1.6 30 30
4.4
4.4
2.4 2.4 2.4
4.3 2.4
36.0˚
4.3
20 20

percentage
1.4

1.6
1.7 10 10
1.9 34.0˚

5 mm/yr
0 0
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
EW residual (mm/yr) NS residual (mm/yr)

Figure 11. Block model 3: Same caption as on Fig. 8.

38.0˚ 38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚ 0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚

36.0˚ 36.0˚

34.0˚ 34.0˚

5 mm/yr 5 mm/yr
mm/yr mm/yr
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
dip−slip strike−slip

38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚
R = 92.63%
1.3
1.3 mu = −0.0, std = 0.5 mm/yr mu = 0.0, std = 0.6 mm/yr
1.2 30 30
3.6
3.6
2.4 2.4 2.4
3.6 2.4
36.0˚
3.5
20 20
percentage

1.1

1.2
1.3 10 10
1.1 34.0˚
1.2
1.2 5 mm/yr
0 0
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
1.2 EW residual (mm/yr) NS residual (mm/yr)
1.3 1.2

Figure 12. Block model 4: Same caption as on Fig. 8.

strike-slip fault identified from regional seismotectonic studies and model variance reduction is 91 per cent and the F-test shows that the
in the 2-D models described above. Velocity residuals decrease χ 2 decrease from model 1 is significant well above the 99 per cent
significantly in eastern Algeria compared to model 1, where they confidence level (Table 2). In this model, the EU–NU oblique
are now <1.5 mm yr−1 at all sites, except at CNGR and CNAJ. The convergence is accommodated by 3.9 mm yr−1 of oblique reverse
582 A. Bougrine, A. K. Yelles-Chaouche and E. Calais

38.0˚ 38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚ 0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚

36.0˚ 36.0˚

34.0˚ 34.0˚

5 mm/yr 5 mm/yr
mm/yr mm/yr
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
dip−slip strike−slip

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚
R = 95.08%
1.5
1.5 mu = 0.0, std = 0.4 mm/yr mu = −0.0, std = 0.4 mm/yr
1.5 30 30
2.7
2.7
2.5 2.5 2.5
2.7 2.1 2.5
36.0˚
2.7 2.0
20 20

percentage
2.0
2.0 1.6
2.0
1.8
1.9 10 10
2.0 34.0˚

5 mm/yr
0 0
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
EW residual (mm/yr) NS residual (mm/yr)

Figure 13. Block model 5: Same caption as on Fig. 8.

38.0˚ 38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚ 0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚

36.0˚ 36.0˚

34.0˚ 34.0˚

5 mm/yr 5 mm/yr
mm/yr mm/yr
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
dip−slip strike−slip

38.0˚
0.0˚ 2.0˚ 4.0˚ 6.0˚ 8.0˚
R = 95.28%
1.5
1.5 mu = 0.0, std = 0.4 mm/yr mu = −0.0, std = 0.4 mm/yr
1.5 30 30
2.8
2.8
2.5 2.5 2.5
2.8 2.0 2.5
36.0˚
2.7 1.9
20 20
percentage

1.9
1.8 1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0 10 10
2.1 34.0˚
0.3
0.3
0.3 5 mm/yr
0 0
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
0.4 EW residual (mm/yr) NS residual (mm/yr)
0.4 0.4

Figure 14. Block model 6: Same caption as on Fig. 8.

faulting on the continental margin fault offshore western Algeria, We note in model 2 that some of the sites south of the GNC
and partitioned between (1) ∼2.7 mm yr−1 of convergence across fault (CSVB, CABS, CBBR, CBCK, CNGR, CNAJ and CFKZ)
its continuation offshore eastern Algeria and (2) ∼2.7 mm yr−1 of and north of it (CMAR, CJIJ) still show systematic south-directed
right-lateral strike-slip motion on the GNC fault. residuals of 0.5–1.5 mm yr−1 . We therefore build model 3 (Fig. 11)
 Active deformation in Algeria from GPS 583

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

Figure 15. Tectonic interpretation of the GPS velocity field. Solid black lines show the major active faults required by the data. Numbers show horizontal
displacement rates along faults in mm yr−1 Arrows at the bottom of the map show the NU–EU relative plate motion derived from this work. The hatched area
over the Tell Atlas is meant to represent the possible ∼2 mm of oblique shortening across that structure allowed by model 5. OFS = offshore fault system, AR
= Alboran ridge, YF = Yussuf fault, GNC = Ghardimaou – North Constantine fault.

with an additional ‘Gafsa’ block bounded to the north by the GNC
fault and to the south and west by a north-dipping fault, which
we call the Gafsa fault, meant to represent the active folding and
faulting structures identified along the Aures Mountains and the
Saharan Atlas (Meghraoui & Pondrelli 2012; Rabaute & Chamot-
Rooke 2014). The model variance reduction is 94 per cent and the
F-test shows that the χ 2 decrease from model 2 is significant well
above the 99 per cent confidence level. We observe that this model
results in smaller residual velocities both within the Gafsa and
East Tell Atlas blocks. Block motions across the Gafsa fault zone
shows 1–2 mm yr−1 of shortening, increasing southward. This is
consistent with geological observations of active folding and reverse
faulting along the southern edge of the Aures mountains (Rabaute
& Chamot-Rooke 2014). Block motions across the GNC fault and
across the offshore reverse fault in the western part of the study area
are similar to model 2. Compared to that model, the convergence
rate across the offshore reverse fault in the eastern part of the study
area decrease slightly to ∼1.5 mm yr−1 .
Although model 3 already provides an excellent fit to the ob-
servations, we now test in model 4 whether adding a West Atlas
block would improve the fit to observations (Fig. 12). This block is
bounded to the south by the Southern Atlas fault system (Fig. 1),
which has been the locus of some historical earthquakes (Harbi et al.
2010). We find a smaller variance reduction (93 per cent) compared
to model 3 with an increase in χ 2 , even though a block was added to
the model. The existence of a West Atlas block in the configuration
of model 4 is therefore not warranted by the data.
Starting from model 3 again, we test whether adding a West Tell
Atlas block would improve the model fit (Fig. 13). This block en-
compasses the restraining bend described in Meghraoui & Pondrelli
(2012), a region of NE–SW–trending faults and folds described for
instance in Meghraoui et al. (1986); Bouhadad (2001). It is bounded
to the south by a fault that may represent the deep structure above
which active faulting and folding localized in the western Tell Atlas.
Model variance reduction is 95 per cent, close to that of model 3.
The significance of the χ 2 decrease from model 3 is slightly larger
than 99 per cent. The eastern part of the study area is unchanged
compared to model 3. In the west, NU–EU convergence is now par-
titioned between ∼3 mm yr−1 of pure shortening across the offshore
fault system and ∼2 mm yr−1 of oblique shortening across the Tell
fault system. This latter number is consistent with the ∼2 mm yr−1
shortening proposed by Meghraoui et al. (1986) across the Cheliff
basin.

Table 2. Statistics of model comparisons showing χ 2 values for each model and the F-ratio tests for selected model pairs A–B. DOF: degrees of freedom,
P-value: probability that the null hypothesis—the additional blocks in model B are not warranted by the data can be rejected. 1 − P: probability that additional
blocks are warranted by the data.
A B N-plates χ 2 -A χ 2 -B DOF-A DOF-B F-ratio P-value 1−P
0 2 9390.780 196
1 2 5175.504 196
1 2 3 5175.504 2824.824 196 187 51.87 1.5648 × 10−24 >> 99.99 per cent
2 3 4 2824.824 1564.360 187 184 49.42 1.4726 × 10−23 >> 99.99 per cent
3 4 5 1564.360 2401.457 184 181
3 5 5 1564.360 1286.515 184 181 13.03 1.1562 × 10−07 >> 99.99 per cent
5 6 6 1286.515 1268.319 181 178 00.85 5.2914 × 10−01 47.09 per cent
584 A. Bougrine, A. K. Yelles-Chaouche and E. Calais

Finally, we test a model that includes the four plate boundary
blocks described above (West Coast, West Atlas, East Tell Atlas,
Gafsa; Fig. 14). As expected, this model has the smallest χ 2 and
highest variance reduction (95 per cent) of all models. The signif-
icance of the χ 2 decrease from the previous model is 47 per cent,
indicating that the existence of a West Atlas block distinct from the
Nubian Plate is not required by the current data at the 99 per cent
confidence level.
7 DISCUSSION
7.1 NU-EU kinematics
strike-slip fault and the Gafsa fault system at the boundary between
the Aures Mountains and the Saharan Atlas (Fig. 11). In terms of
blocks, this adds to the kinematic description of eastern Algeria
(1) a coastal sliver between the GNC and offshore faults and (2)
a very low strain rate region extending from the GNC fault to the
Gafsa fault to the south. Such a model requires convergence and
right-lateral slip across the Gafsa fault, consistent with the active
oblique ramp structure described in the southern Tunisian Atlas by
Saı̈d et al. (2011). Although the kinematic models described here
use a single, distinct, fault, the relative motion required by the GPS
data between the Gafsa and the West Atlas blocks are likely more
diffuse in the actual geology, as shown by Saı̈d et al. (2011) and
Rabaute & Chamot-Rooke (2014).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

In western Algeria, the addition of a West Atlas block does not
As noted above, the new EU–NU angular rotation from this study
significantly improve the model fit to the data (Fig. 12). This is
is consistent with previous geodetic ones, but significantly differs
consistent with previous GPS results in Morocco (Koulali et al.
from the 3 Myr–average geological one. The implication in terms
2011). Contrary to eastern Algeria, where GPS velocities cannot
of relative motion along the NU–EU Plate boundary in northern
be satisfactorily fit unless the observed GNC strike-slip fault is
Africa is significant, as shown on Fig. 2, though small along the
implemented in the kinematic models, in western Algeria the data
Gloria fault. This geodetic versus geological discrepancy was pre-
do not require an equivalent on-land fault. The fit is marginally
viously identified by Calais et al. (2003), who proposed that the
improved by adding a West Tell Atlas block (Fig. 13) but in all cases
change to more oblique NU–EU motion from a 3 Ma–average to
an acceptable fit requires reverse faulting on an offshore fault. There
the Present reflected increasing difficulty in maintaining margin-
is no doubt that there are active faults in the broad coastal region
normal convergence within this continent/continent collision zone.
of western Algeria (Tell Atlas, Fig. 1), as illustrated for instance
That the discrepancy remains in spite of longer time-series and
by the 1980 El Asnam earthquake. But whether these faults are the
a better distribution of GPS sites across the Nubian Plate (Saria
surface expression of a deeper fault that localizes interseismic strain
et al. 2013), while the goodness of fit to a rigid plate model for
accumulation is less clear. Upper crustal faults could be releasing the
Nubia remains acceptable, is in favour of a recent change in the
broad wavelength elastic strain that results from a locked offshore
EU–NU Plate motion. However, using kinematic reconstructions
reverse fault that dips to the south underneath the coastal region.
at ∼1 Myr intervals, DeMets et al. (2015) found no significant
An interesting outcome of the GPS measurements is the lack of
change in EU–NU Plate motion since 5 Ma that would bring the
significant present-day strain accumulation within the High Plateaus
geological and geodetic estimates closer. Their test for this however
and Saharan Atlas in the west, and the Aures Mountains in the
involves fitting the well-mapped trace of the Gloria Fault, where the
east. This is consistent with the current scarcity of the instrumental
geological versus geodetic discrepancy is small (Fig. 2).
seismicity in both domains, in spite of their rather high elevation
Other explanations remain to be explored, as systematic biases
(∼1000 m on average). They may maintain this elevation isostat-
may affect the geological and/or geodetic solutions proposed so
ically thanks to a crust thicker than its surroundings, as indicated
far. The influence of outward displacement on magnetic reversal
in regional Bouguer gravity (Fullea et al. 2008) or continent-wide
locations remains an issue of importance, as well as the difficulty
crustal thickness estimates (Tedla et al. 2011).
to reliably identify magnetic reversals along spreading centres with
In the end, models 3 and 5 both fit the GPS observations well,
ultra-slow spreading rates (e.g. DeMets et al. 2017).
while further refinement of the model geometry is not warranted by
A possibly related observation, noted by DeMets et al. (2015), is
the data at this point. They are both consistent with the distribution of
a similar inconsistency between geological and geodetic estimates
instrumental seismicity and active faulting that show deformation
of the EU-NA relative motion, with a geodetic pole located much
concentrated within a narrow, ∼50-km-wide coastal stripe in the
farther north than required by seismotectonic observations. Recent
west, broadening to the east across a ∼400-km-wide region. In the
work indicates that the discrepancy is alleviated by using GPS ve-
western part of the region, since no single continuous fault has been
locities at stations located on the entire area of the NA and EU
identified in the field that would materialize the boundary between a
plates and correcting them for glacial isostatic adjustment effects
possible West Tell Atlas block and Nubia, we tentatively favour the
(Calais et al. 2018). How this would affect the EU–NU Plate motion
more parsimonious model 3. Here again, however, that boundary
remains to be determined in future work.
may well correspond to a diffuse deformation area with numerous
smaller faults, rather to a single, well-expressed fault. Additional
GPS sites and more precise velocity determinations will help revisit
7.2 Which best-fitting kinematic model?
this issue in the future.
It is quite remarkable that model 1, with a simple two-plate geometry
and an offshore oblique reverse fault fits the GPS observations that
well, with residuals less than 0.5 mm yr−1 at most sites (Fig. 9). Such
7.3 Role of offshore faulting
a model performs significantly better than an equally simple model
where the two plates are separated by an onland transpressional As shown above, GPS velocities in Algeria are consistent with a
system (Fig. 8). model where a significant fraction of the NU–EU oblique conver-
Although GPS velocities in western Algeria are well-explained gence is accommodated on a south-dipping offshore reverse fault
by a single offshore reverse fault, the pattern of velocities is more system that emerges at the toe of the Algerian margin. Our best-
complex in eastern Algeria (Fig. 5b). We find that the data are fit fitting model implies a horizontal shortening rate of 4.4 mm yr−1 on
significantly better by allowing slip on the east–west-trending GNC that offshore fault system in western Algeria, decreasing to about

1.5 mm yr−1 in eastern Algeria where the remainder of the NU–EU
convergence is taken up further south and inland, between the Aures
Mountains and the Saharan platform.
This result is consistent with a series of observations from bathy-
metric and seismic reflection data that mapped a succession of
reverse fault segments oriented NE–SW to E–W associated with re-
cent compressive deformation along the toe of the Algerian margin
over a width of ∼20 km (Deverchère 2005; Domzig et al. 2006;
Kherroubi et al. 2009; Yelles et al. 2009; Aidi et al. 2018). These
faults have been the locus of the recent Chenoua (1989), Ain Benian
(1996), Boumerdes (2003) and Algiers (2014) earthquakes (Yelles-
Chaouche et al. 2017). They may also have been responsible for
the tsunamigenic historical earthquakes of 1716 (Algiers) and 1773
(Tipaza), which where accompanied by 2–4 m waves heights that
transported large boulders onshore (Maouche et al. 2009). The east-
ern half of the coast is seismically quieter, with only one major event
reported in the region, the 1856, Djidjeli earthquake that also trig-
gered a tsunami (Yelles-Chaouche et al. 2009). This is qualitatively
consistent with the eastward decrease in slip rate indicated by the
block models.
To the west, the offshore fault likely connects with the Yusuf
fault and the Alboran Ridge, part of a complex faulting system in
the Alboran Sea (e.g. Giaconia et al. 2015). The Yusuf fault may
then be a transfer structure between the Algerian offshore fault
and the Alboran ridge. To the east, the offshore fault may connect
with reverse faults mapped in the Sardinia Channel (Nicolich 1989;
Tricart et al. 1994), though the lack of GPS information in Tunisia
yet prevents a more detailed analysis.
The analysis of the GPS data presented here is therefore in agree-
ment with seismic marine investigations that emphasize the role
played by offshore structures, possibly reactivated in recent times
with underthrusting of the Algerian basin oceanic lithosphere under
northern Africa.
7.4 Strain partitioning in Eastern Algeria
A surprising—but robust—finding of this study is the role played
by the GNC right-lateral strike-slip fault in accommodating the
oblique component of NU–EU convergence in eastern Algeria, and
possibly Tunisia as well. This fault, previously recognized in the
field in Tunisia (Bahrouni et al. 2013) and Algeria (Meghraoui &
Pondrelli 2012; Rabaute & Chamot-Rooke 2014) has received little
attention in spite of a significant present-day slip deficit rate, esti-
mated at ∼2.4 mm yr−1 in the models. It is however the locus of
significant instrumental seismicity, as shown on Fig. 1, including
several earthquakes with strike-slip mechanisms (e.g. Bounif et al.
1987). Its discontinuous trace in the imagery may be indicative of
its relatively recent activation. Its continuation westward through
Kabylie is unclear, the trace chosen for the block models is a sim-
plification that will need to be refined as denser GPS observations
become available.
While the GNC fault accommodates right-lateral shear between
EU and NU, the component of convergence between the two plates
is accommodated by both the eastern part of the offshore fault to
the north (∼1.5 mm yr−1 ), discussed above, and the Gafsa fault sys-
tem to the south (∼1.7 mm yr−1 ). The distribution of instrumental
seismicity (Fig. 1) shows that the Gafsa fault system is highlighted
by moderate seismic activity. It is also the locus of significant his-
torical earthquakes in 1869 (Biskra, Aures), 1924 (Batna, Aures)
and 267 A.D. (Negrine, southern limit of the Saharan Atlas). This
Active deformation in Algeria from GPS 585
latter event is also the oldest reported historical earthquake in Alge-
ria (Yelles-Chaouche et al. 2006; Harbi et al. 2010). Block models
predict a combination of thrust and strike slip movement on a north-
dipping oblique fault, consistent with focal mechanisms available in
this area (Fig. 1). Why the NU–EU oblique convergence is currently
partitioned in eastern Algeria may have to do with the higher obliq-
uity of the plate margin direction to the NU–EU relative motion
in the east than in the west (Fig. 15)—this question is a topic for
further work.
7.5 Implications for seismic hazard
Several seismic hazard maps include the territory of Algeria from
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019
global (e.g. Grünthal et al. 1999), to regional (Jiménez & Garcı́a-
Fernández 1999; Peláez Montilla et al. 2003; Mourabit et al. 2013),
or national scales (Hamdache 1998; Peláez Montilla et al. 2003;
Boughacha et al. 2004). As they all rely on historical earthquakes
and instrumental seismicity, such maps typically focus hazard where
large earthquakes have occurred in the past, a characteristics shared
by both deterministic and probabilistic approaches (Stein et al.
2012). As a result, the area of the 1954/1980 Orléansville/El
Asnam earthquakes systematically shows significant hazard (e.g.
Peláez Montilla et al. 2003; Mourabit et al. 2013), while the role of
known faults—offshore fault as well as some inland faults such as
the GNC and Gafsa faults—is neglected or underemphasized (e.g.
Peláez Montilla et al. 2003; Mourabit et al. 2013). The GSHAP map
(Grünthal et al. 1999) is however the one where areas of larger haz-
ard tend to match best, qualitatively, the areas of strain accumulation
derived from the GPS measurements described above.
That the geodetic data is consistent with geological evidence for
an active offshore fault zone as an important element to account
for in future realizations of hazard maps. That fault zone, with slip
deficit rates of 1–4.4 mm yr−1 , is a threat to all coastal areas of
Algeria, where a majority of the population resides, in particular
in the two largest cities of Algiers and Oran. As shown on Fig. 6,
strain accumulation on that fault system reaches far inland, which
may be sufficient to provide the strain energy to be released by
earthquakes on inland faults. Alternatively, the Tell Atlas itself may
be the expression of a discrete fault zone at depth, as illustrated in
block model 5 (Fig. 13c), accommodating ∼2 mm yr−1 of slip. In
eastern Algeria, GPS data confirms the presence of the GNC fault
(Fig. 15), with a slip deficit rate close to 3 mm yr−1 —the largest of
all on-land faults—that runs close to the large city of Constantine.
Finally, the presence of offshore reverse faults, whose current ac-
tivity is required by the GPS data, adds the possibility of tsunamis
either directly triggered by coseismic seafloor motion or by sub-
marine slope failures caused by ground shaking. The 2003, Mw 6.8
Boumerdes earthquake, which ruptured a segment of the offshore
fault system, triggered a tsunami that caused damage at some har-
bors in Balearic Islands, with eddies and oscillations reported in
harbors of southern France (Roger & Hébert 2008). Tsunamis trig-
gered by earthquakes on the offshore fault system pose a threat
not only to the Algerian coast, but to most of the coastlines of the
Western Mediterranean basin, as shown in several simulations (e.g.
Roger & Hébert 2008; Periàñez & Abril 2013).
8 C O N C LU S I O N S
The GPS-derived velocity field for Algeria presented here fills an
important gap in the description of the present-day kinematics of
plate boundary deformation in the western Mediterranean. Together
586 A. Bougrine, A. K. Yelles-Chaouche and E. Calais
with block models, GPS velocities confirm elastic strain accumula-
tion on an offshore reverse fault system, consistent with geological
data showing underthrusting of the oceanic lithosphere of the Alge-
rian basin under the North African margin. The data do not require
the presence of a discrete fault zone throughout the western Tell At-
las, where the 1980 El Asnam earthquake occurred, but allow for it.
In eastern Algeria, deformation is more broadly distributed. There,
the data require slip on the GNC strike-slip fault and on the Gafsa
fault system, with shortening between the Aures and the Saharan
platform.
Although the block models and the fault slip rates derived here
from GPS velocities are still to be refined, they provide new guide-
lines for seismic hazard assessment in Algeria. Denser GPS mea-
surements are now required to refine this first-order description of
EU–NU Plate boundary deformation in Algeria.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
This study was partly funded by the ‘Tassili’ programme of the
French Ministry for Foreign affairs. AB acknowledges support from
CRAAG and ENS. EC acknowledges support from the Institut Uni-
versitaire de France. We benefited from constructive input from
N. Chamot-Rooke and J. Déverchère. We thank Jean-Mathieu Noc-
quet and Philippe Vernant for their insightful reviews.
REFERENCES
Aidi, C. et al., 2018. Deep structure of the continental margin and basin off
Greater Kabylia, Algeria—New insights from wide-angle seismic data
modeling and multichannel seismic interpretation, Tectonophysics, 728–
729, 1–22.
Altamimi, Z., Rebischung, P., Métivier, L. & Collilieux, X., 2016. ITRF2014:
a new release of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame modeling
nonlinear station motions, J. geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 121(8), 6109–
6131.
Altamimi, Z., Métivier, L., Rebischung, P., Rouby, H. & Collilieux, X., 2017.
ITRF2014 plate motion model, J. geophys. Res., 209, 1906–1912.
Arab, M. et al. 2016. Tectonostratigraphic evolution of the eastern Algerian
margin and basin from seismic data and onshore-offshore correlation,
Mar. Petrol. Geol., 77(C), 1355–1375.
Argus, D., Gordon, R. & DeMets, C., 2011. Geologically current motion
of 56 plates relative to the no–net–rotation reference frame, Geochem.
Geophys. Geosyst., 12, Q11001.
Auzende, J.-M., Bonnin, J. & Olivet, J.-L., 1975. La marge nord-africaine
considérée comme marge active, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de
France, 17 (4), 486–495.
Bahrouni, N., Bouaziz, S., Soumaya, A., Ben Ayed, N., Attafi, K., Houla,
Y., El Ghali, A. & Rebai, N., 2013. Neotectonic and seismotectonic in-
vestigation of seismically active regions in Tunisia: a multidisciplinary
approach, J. Seismol., 18(2), 235–256.
Beldjoudi, H., Guemache, M.A., Kherroubi, A., Semmane, F., Yelles-
Chaouche, A.K., Djellit, H., Amrani, A. & Haned, A., 2009. The Lalam
(Bjaa, North-East Algeria) moderate earthquake (Mw = 5.2) on March
20, 2006, Pure appl. Geophys., 166(4), 623–640.
Ben Hassen, M., Deffontaines, B. & Turki, M.M., 2014. Recent tectonic
activity of the Gafsa fault through morphometric analysis: Southern Atlas
of Tunisia, Quater. Int., 338(C), 99–112.
Bird, P., 2003. An updated digital model of plate boundaries, Geochem.,
Geophys., Geosyst., 4(3), 1–52.
Boughacha, M.S., Ouyed, M., Ayadi, A. & Benhallou, H., 2004. Seismic-
ity and seismic hazard mapping of northern Algeria: map of maximum
calculated intensities (MCI), J. Seismol., 8(1), 1–10.
Bouhadad, Y., 2001. The Murdjadjo, Western Algeria, fault-related fold:
implications for seismic hazard, J. Seismol., 5(4), 541–558.
Bounif, A., Haessier, H. & Meghraoui, M., 1987. The Constantine (northeast
Algeria) earthquake of October 27, 1985: surface ruptures and aftershock
study, Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 85(4), 451–460.
Buforn, E., Bezzeghoud, M., Ud as, A. & Pro, C., 2004. Seismic Sources on
the Iberia-African Plate boundary and their tectonic implications, Pure
appl. Geophys., 161(3), 623–646.
Calais, E., DeMets, C. & Nocquet, J.M., 2003. Evidence for a post–3.16 Ma
change in Nubia–Eurasia–North America plate motions?, Earth planet.
Sci. Lett., 216, 81–92.
Calais, E., Fleitout, L. & Lambeck, K., 2018. Eurasia-North America plate
motion and Glacial isostatic adjustment, Geophys. Res. Abstracts, EGU
Gen. Assembly, 20, 10999.
Coiffait, B., Guellal, S. & Vila, J., 1992. Carte géologique au 1/50.000 d El
Aria, Sonatrach. Division Hydrocarbures.
DeMets, C., Iaffaldano, G. & Merkouriev, S., 2015. High–resolution Neo-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019
gene and Quaternary estimates of Nubia–Eurasia–North America Plate
motion, Geophys. J. Int., 203(1), 416–427.
DeMets, C., Calais, E. & Merkouriev, S., 2017. Reconciling geodetic and
geological estimates of recent plate motion across the Southwest Indian
Ridge, Geophys. J. Int., 208(1), 118–133.
Deverchère, J., 2005. Active thrust faulting offshore Boumerdes, Algeria,
and its relations to the 2003 Mw 6.9 earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32
(4), L04311–5.
Domzig, A. et al., 2006. Searching for the Africa–Eurasia Miocene boundary
offshore western Algeria (MARADJA’03 cruise), Compt. Rend. - Geosci.,
338(1-2), 80–91.
Fadil, A. et al. 2006. Active tectonics of the western Mediterranean: geodetic
evidence for rollback of a delaminated subcontinental lithospheric slab
beneath the Rif Mountains, Morocco, Geology, 34 (7), 529–4.
Fullea, J., Fernández, M. & Zeyen, H., 2008. FA2BOUG—A FORTRAN 90
code to compute Bouguer gravity anomalies from gridded free-air anoma-
lies: application to the Atlantic-Mediterranean transition zone, Comput.
Geosci., 34(12), 1665–1681.
Giaconia, F., Rea, G.B., Ranero, C.R. & Gràcia, E., 2015. Compressional tec-
tonic inversion of the algero–balearic basin: latemost miocene to present
oblique convergence at the palomares margin, Tectonics, 34, 1516–1543.
Grünthal, G., Bosse, C., Sellami, S. & Mayer-Rosa, D., 1999. Compilation
of the GSHAP regional seismic hazard for Europe, Africa and the Middle
East, Ann. Geophys., 42(6), 1215–1223.
Hamai, L., Petit, C., Abtout, A., Yelles-Chaouche, A.K. & Deverchère,
J., 2015. Flexural behaviour of the north Algerian margin and tectonic
implications, Geophys. J. Int., 201(3), 1426–1436.
Hamdache, M., 1998. Seismic hazard assessment for the main seismogenic
zones in North Algeria, Pure appl. Geophys., 152(2), 281–314.
Harbi, A., Maouche, S. & Ayadi, A., 1999. Neotectonics and associate
seismicity in the Eastern Tellian Atlas of Algeria, J. Seismol., 3(1), 95–
104.
Harbi, A., Maouche, S., Vaccari, F., Aoudia, A., Oussadou, F., Panza, G.F. &
Benouar, D., 2007. Seismicity, seismic input and site effects in the Sahel
Algiers region (North Algeria), Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 27(5), 427–447.
Harbi, A., Peresan, A. & Panza, G.F., 2010. Seismicity of Eastern Algeria:
a revised and extended earthquake catalogue, Nat. Hazards, 54(3), 725–
747.
Herring, T., 2003. MATLAB Tools for viewing GPS velocities and time
series, GPS Solut., 7(3), 194–199.
Herring, T.A., King, R.W., Floyd, M. & McClusky, S.C., 2015. Introduction
to GAMIT/GLOBK, Release 10.6, Tech. rep., Massachussetts Institute of
Tectonology.
Jiménez, M.J. & Garcı́a-Fernández, M., 1999. Seismic hazard assessment in
the Ibero-Maghreb region, Ann . Geophys., 42(6), 1057–1065.
Kherroubi, A. et al., 2009. Recent and active deformation pattern off the
easternmost Algerian margin, Western Mediterranean Sea: New evidence
for contractional tectonic reactivation, Mar. Geol., 261(1-4), 17–32.
Koulali, A. et al., 2011. New GPS constraints on active deformation along
the Africa–Iberia plate boundary, Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 308(1-2), 211–
217.
Leprêtre, A., Klingelhoefer, F., Graindorge, D., Schnurle, P., Beslier, M.O.,
Yelles, K., Deverchère, J. & Bracene, R., 2013. Multiphased tectonic

evolution of the Central Algerian margin from combined wide-angle and
reflection seismic data off Tipaza, Algeria, J. geophys. Res.: Solid Earth,
118(8), 3899–3916.
Maouche, S., Morhange, C. & Meghraoui, M., 2009. Large boulder accu-
mulation on the Algerian coast evidence tsunami events in the western
Mediterranean, Mar. Geol., 262(1-4), 96–104.
Maouche, S., Abtout, A., Merabet, N.-E., Aı̈fa, T., Lamali, A., Bouyahiaoui,
B., Bougchiche, S. & Ayache, M., 2013. Tectonic and hydrothermal ac-
tivities in Debagh, Guelma Basin (Algeria), J. Geol. Res., 2013(3-4),
1–13.
Mauffret, A., 2007. The Northwestern (Maghreb) boundary of the Nubia
(Africa) Plate, Tectonophysics, 429(1-2), 21–44.
Meade, B.J. & Loveless, J.P., 2009. Block modeling with connected fault-
network geometries and a linear elastic coupling estimator in spherical
coordinates, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 99(6), 3124–3139.
Medaouri, M., Déverchère, J., Graindorge, D., Bracène, R., Badji, R.,
Ouabadi, A., Yelles-Chaouche, A.K. & Bendiab, F., 2014. The transition
from Alboran to Algerian basins (Western Mediterranean Sea): chronos-
tratigraphy, deep crustal structure and tectonic evolution at the rear of a
narrow slab rollback system, J. Geodyn., 77, 186–205.
Meghraoui, M. & Pondrelli, S., 2012. Active faulting and transpression
tectonics along the plate boundary in North Africa, Ann. Geophys., 55
(5), 955–967.
Meghraoui, M., Cisternas, A. & Philip, H., 1986. Seismotectonics of the
Lower Cheliff Basin: structural background of the El Asnam (Algeria)
earthquake, Tectonics, 5(6), 809–836.
Mourabit, T. et al., 2013. Neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment in
North Africa, J. Seismol., 18(2), 301–318.
Nicolich, R., 1989. Crustal structures from seismic studies in the frame
of the European Geotraverse (southern segment) and CROP projects, in
The Lithosphere in Italy, Advances in Earth Science Research, Academia
Nazionale dei Lincei, Academia Nazionale del Lincei, Roma.
Nocquet, J.M., 2012. Present-day kinematics of the Mediterranean: a com-
prehensive overview of GPS results, Tectonophysics, 578, 220–242.
Nocquet, J.M. & Calais, E., 2004. Geodetic measurements of crustal defor-
mation in the Western Mediterranean and Europe, Pure appl. Geophys.,
161(3), 661–681.
Nocquet, J.M., Willis, P. & Garcia, S., 2006. Plate kinematics of Nubia–
Somalia using a combined DORIS and GPS solution, J. Geod., 80(8-11),
591–607.
Ouyed, M. et al., 1981. Seismotectonics of the El Asnam earthquake, Nature,
292(5818), 26–31.
Peláez Montilla, J.A., Hamdache, M. & López Casado, C., 2003. Seismic
hazard in Northern Algeria using spatially smoothed seismicity. Results
for peak ground acceleration, Tectonophysics, 372(1-2), 105–119.
Periàñez, R. & Abril, J., 2013. The 1856 Tsunami of Djidjelli (Eastern Alge-
ria): seismotectonics, modelling and hazard implications for the Algerian
Coast, J. Mar. Syst., 111–112, 223–234.
Petit, G. & Luzum, B., 2010. IERS Conventions (2010), Vol. 36, Verlag des
Bundesamts für Kartographie und Geodäsie, ISBN 3-89888-989-6.
Philip, H. & Meghraoui, M., 1983. Structural analysis and interpretation
of the surface deformations of the El Asnam Earthquake of October 10,
1980, Tectonics, 2(1), 17–49.
Rabaute, A. & Chamot-Rooke, N., 2014. Active tectonics of the Africa-
Eurasia Boundary from Algiers to Calabria, Contributor : S. Bouaziz,
scale : 1/500.000, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.23493.86245.
Roger, J. & Hébert, H., 2008. The 1856 Djijelli (Algeria) earthquake and
tsunami: source parameters and implications for tsunami hazard in the
BalearicIslands, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 8 (4), 721–731.
Saı̈d, A., Chardon, D., Baby, P. & Ouali, J., 2011. Active oblique ramp
faulting in the Southern Tunisian Atlas, Tectonophysics, 499(1-4), 178–
189.
Saria, E., Calais, E., Altamimi, Z., Willis, P. & Farah, H., 2013. A new
velocity field for Africa from combined GPS and DORIS space geodetic
solutions: contribution to the definition of the African reference frame
(AFREF): an African Geodetic Reference Frame, J. geophys. Res., 118(4),
1677–1697.
Active deformation in Algeria from GPS 587
Savage, J.C., 1983. A dislocation model of strain accumulation and re-
lease at a subduction zone, J. geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 88(B6),
4984–4996.
Schmid, R., Steigenberger, P., Gendt, G., Ge, M. & Rothacher, M., 2007.
Generation of a consistent absolute phase-center correction model for
GPS receiver and satellite antennas, J. Geod., 81(12), 781–798.
Segall, P., 2010. Earthquake and Volcano Deformation, Princeton University
Press.
Serpelloni, E., Vannucci, G., Pondrelli, S., Argnani, A., Casula, G., Anzidei,
M., Baldi, P. & Gasperini, P., 2007. Kinematics of the Western Africa-
Eurasia plate boundary from focal mechanisms and GPS data, Geophys.
J. Int., 169(3), 1180–1200.
Stein, S. & Gordon, R.G., 1984. Statistical tests of additional plate bound-
aries from plate motion inversions, Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 69(2), 401–
412.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019
Stein, S., Geller, R.J. & Liu, M., 2012. Why earthquake hazard maps often
fail and what to do about it, Tectonophysics, 562-563, 1–25.
Stich, D., Serpelloni, E., de Lis Mancilla, F. & Morales, J., 2006. Kinematics
of the Iberia–Maghreb plate contact from seismic moment tensors and
GPS observations, Tectonophysics, 426(3-4), 295–317.
Stich, D., Martı́n, R. & Morales, J., 2010. Moment tensor inversion for
Iberia–Maghreb earthquakes 2005–2008, Tectonophysics, 483(3-4), 390–
398.
Tedla, G.E., Meijde, M.v.d., Nyblade, A.A. & Meer, F.D.v.d., 2011. A crustal
thickness map of Africa derived from a global gravity field model using
Euler deconvolution, Geophys. J. Int., 187(1), 1–9.
Tricart, P., Torelli, L., Argnani, A., Rekhiss, F. & Zitellini, N., 1994. Ex-
tensional collapse related to compressional uplift in the alpine chain
off northern Tunisia (Central Mediterranean), Tectonophysics, 238(1-4),
317–329.
Vernant, P. et al., 2010. Geodetic constraints on active tectonics of the
Western Mediterranean: implications for the kinematics and dynam-
ics of the Nubia-Eurasia plate boundary zone, J. Geodyn., 49, (3-4),
123–129.
Williams, S.D.P., 2003. The effect of coloured noise on the uncertain-
ties of rates estimated from geodetic time series, J. Geod., 76(9-10),
483–494.
Yelles, K., Djellit, H. & Hamdache, M., 2003. The Boumerdes-Algiers (Al-
geria) earthquake of May 21st, 2003 (Mw = 6.8), CSEM/EMSC Newslett.,
20, 3–5.
Yelles, K., Lammali, K., Mahsas, A., Calais, E. & Briole, P., 2004. Coseismic
deformation of the May 21st, 2003, Mw = 6.8 Boumerdes earthquake,
Algeria, from GPS measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L13610.
Yelles, K. et al., 2009. Plio-Quaternary reactivation of the Neogene margin
off NW Algiers, Algeria: the Khayr al Din bank, Tectonophysics, 475(1),
98–116.
Yelles-Chaouche, A.K., Boudiaf, A., Djellit, H. & Bracene, R., 2006. Tec-
tonique active de la région nord-algérienne, Geoscience, 338(1–2), 126–
139.
Yelles-Chaouche, A.K., Roger, J., Déverchère, J., Bracène, R., Domzig,
A., Hébert, H. & Kherroubi, A., 2009. The 1856 Tsunami of Djid-
jelli (Eastern Algeria): seismotectonics, modelling and hazard im-
plications for the Algerian Coast, Pure appl. Geophys., 166(1-2),
283–300.
Yelles-Chaouche, A.K., Kherroubi, A. & Beldjoudi, H., 2017. The large
Algerian earthquakes (267 A.D.-2017), Fı̀sica de la Tierra, 29, 159–182.
Yielding, G., Ouyed, M., King, G.C.P. & Hatzfeld, D., 1989. Active tectonics
of the Algerian Atlas mountains—evidence from aftershocks of the 1980
El Asnam earthquake, Geophys. J. Int., 99, 761–788.
S U P P O RT I N G I N F O R M AT I O N
Supplementary data are available at GJ I online.
Table S1. Site velocities expressed in ITRF2014. Lat. and Lon.
are latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. Ve, Vn are horizon-
tal velocity (east and north, respectively) in mm yr−1 . σ Ve , σ Vn
588 A. Bougrine, A. K. Yelles-Chaouche and E. Calais

are standard deviation of horizontal velocity in mm yr−1 . σ Ven are Table S2. χ 2 and variance reduction, R, computed for each model
correlation between Ve and Vn. Sites with a star are those used to in the three frames: Nubia, Eurasia and ITRF.
define the Eurasia and Nubia reference frames. Sites in bold font
Please note: Oxford University Press is not responsible for the con-
are those whose position time-series show (1) non-linear behaviour
tent or functionality of any supporting materials supplied by the
unlikely tectonic in origin and (2) velocities that are different from
authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be di-
their nearest neighbors. These sites were excluded from the inter-
rected to the corresponding author for the paper.
pretation.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/217/1/572/5289867 by CNRS user on 31 March 2019

View publication stats