Author Correction: Numerical simulation of the tsunamis generated by the Sciara del Fuoco landslides (Stromboli Island, Italy)

“We simulated the following scenarios: (i) the tsunami runup, inland inundation and wave propagation at Stromboli triggered by submarine landslides with volumes of 6, 10, 15 and 20×106 m3 and subaerial landslides with volumes of 4, 6, 10 and 30×106 m3; (ii) tsunami propagation in the STS triggered by submarine landslides with volumes of 10 and 15×106 m3 and by subaerial landslides with volumes of 6 and 30×106 m3. We estimate that the damages of the last relevant tsunami at Stromboli, which occurred in 2002, could have been generated either by a subaqueous failure of about 15–20×106 m3 along the SdF or/and a subaerial failure of about 4–6×106 m3.”

now reads: "Aside from the worst case (i.e. 35.3 × 10 6 m 3 ), the slides in all scenarios had a circular footprint with a radius of 670 m (Fig. 1). The 35.3 × 10 6 m 3 slide had an elliptical footprint with the major axis (1300 m) following the inclination of SdF and the minor one (600 m) perpendicular to it (Fig. 1). Submarine slides centers coordinates were: x = 517563, y = 4295449 and z = −293 m. Centers coordinates of sub-aerial slides with circular footprints were: x = 518054, y = 4294622 and z = 250 m. Due to its size and footprint, the center coordinates for the 35.3 × 10 6 m 3 slide were: x = 518186, y= 4294600 and z = 350 m (Fig. 1). Coordinates are in WGS84, UTM 33 reference system. To account for the different volumes, the slide thickness changed for every scenario, i.e. for the 4.7, 7.1, 11.8, 17.6, 23.5 and 35.3 × 10 6 m 3 cases, the maximum thicknesses were respectively 29.9, 45.0, 74.7, 112.0, 194.4 and 149.4  Under the subheading 'Proximal impact: Tsunami effect on stromboli island' , "Figures 4a and 5a illustrate the simulated maximum wave heights and inundation generated by a submarine failure of 15 × 10 6 m 3 and by an aerial failure of 6 × 10 6 m 3 on the most inhabited and frequented coast of Stromboli. " now reads: "Figures 4a and 5a illustrate the simulated maximum wave heights and inundation generated by a submarine failure of 17.6 × 10 6 m 3 and by an aerial failure of 7.1 × 10 6 m 3 on the most inhabited and frequented coast of Stromboli. " Under the same subheading, "Waves generated by the 6 × 10 6 m 3 subaqueous slide would cause concerns only along the beaches. The maximum penetration (~30 m) and runup (~8 m) are on the beach between Ficogrande and Punta Lena (Fig. 4b).
The 10 × 10 6 m 3 slide causes significant inundation on the main beaches. Just before Punta Lena, waves affect not only the shore but also the residential area. The simulation shows here a maximum penetration of ~110 m and a runup locally over 10 m. It is worth to note that in this area the simulation overestimates the impact of the 2002 event (Fig. 4b). The 15 × 10 6 m 3 slide scenario fits well the impact of the 2002 tsunami along the north-east coast of Stromboli, both as inland penetration (Fig. 4a) and runup (Fig. 4b) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ overestimates even more the water inland penetration around Punta Lena (>250 m). The 20 × 10 6 m 3 scenario shows a stretch of runup just below 15 m between Attracco Cisterna and Punta Lena. " now reads: "Waves generated by the 7.1 × 10 6 m 3 subaqueous slide would cause concerns only along the beaches. The maximum penetration (~30 m) and runup (~8 m) are on the beach between Ficogrande and Punta Lena (Fig. 4b).
The 11.8 × 10 6 m 3 slide causes significant inundation on the main beaches. Just before Punta Lena, waves affect not only the shore but also the residential area. The simulation shows here a maximum penetration of ~110 m and a runup locally over 10 m. It is worth to note that in this area the simulation overestimates the impact of the 2002 event (Fig. 4b). The 17.6 × 10 6 m 3 slide scenario fits well the impact of the 2002 tsunami along the northeast coast of Stromboli, both as inland penetration (Fig. 4a) and runup (Fig. 4b). The simulated runup is often over 10 m between Spiaggia Lunga and Punta Restuccia and between Ficogrande and Punta Lena. The maximum penetration is ~250 m at Punta Lena. Compared to the 2002 event, the simulation overestimates the tsunami impact on the inland of Punta Lena and underestimates it on the beach in front of the power plant (Enel, Fig. 4a). Differently, the 23.5 × 10 6 m 3 slide impact fits well with the 2002 tsunami effects between Enel and Porto, while it overestimates even more the water inland penetration around Punta Lena (>250 m). The 23.5 × 10 6 m 3 scenario shows a stretch of runup just below 15 m between Attracco Cisterna and Punta Lena. " And, "The 4 × 10 6 m 3 slide would already be capable of largely inundating the north-east coast with a runup of 10-11 m (locally even more) between Ficogrande and Punta Lena with a maximum penetration of ~90 m. This runup fits well with the observed 2002 runup but the inundation area is underestimated after Punta Lena. The 6 × 10 6 m 3 aerial slide has a stronger impact than the subaqueous slide of the same volume. The water inland penetration fits well with 2002 tsunami impact with the exception of the area between Punta Lena and Enel where simulation overestimates it with a maximum penetration reaching ~240 m (Fig. 5a). The runups in the heavily affected area, i.e. between Attracco Cisterna and Punta Lena, range from ~8 to ~18 m (Fig. 5b). The 11.8 × 10 6 m 3 aerial slide causes large inundation with maximum runups ranging from 12 to 19 m, again between Attracco Cisterna and Punta Lena. Finally, the 30 × 10 6 m 3 aerial slide would cause dramatic inundations. " now reads: "The 4.7 × 10 6 m 3 slide would already be capable of largely inundating the north-east coast with a runup of 10-11 m (locally even more) between Ficogrande and Punta Lena with a maximum penetration of ~90 m. This runup fits well with the observed 2002 runup but the inundation area is underestimated after Punta Lena. The 7.1 × 10 6 m 3 aerial slide has a stronger impact than the subaqueous slide of the same volume. The water inland penetration fits well with 2002 tsunami impact with the exception of the area between Punta Lena and Enel where simulation overestimates it with a maximum penetration reaching ~240 m (Fig. 5a). The runups in the heavily affected area, i.e. between Attracco Cisterna and Punta Lena, range from ~8 to ~18 m (Fig. 5b). The 11.8 × 10 6 m 3 aerial slide causes large inundation with maximum runups ranging from 12 to 19 m, again between Attracco Cisterna and Punta Lena. Under the subheading 'Comparison with previous works' , "Although the NHWAVE code used here treats the slide as a rigid body, which is a rougher approximation than that of Tinti et al. 7 , it calculates the runup and the inland flooding taking into account the role of topography in the tsunami impact. 16 × 10 6 m 3 subaqueous scenarios and 5 × 10 6 m 3 subaerial scenarios of Tinti et al. 7 can be compared with our scenarios of similar volume, i.e. the 15 × 10 6 m 3 subaqueous slide and the 6 ×10 6 m 3 subaerial slide, respectively. " now reads: "Although the NHWAVE code used here treats the slide as a rigid body, which is a rougher approximation than that of Tinti et al. 7 , it calculates the runup and the inland flooding taking into account the role of topography in the tsunami impact. 16 × 10 6 m 3 subaqueous scenarios and 5 × 10 6 m 3 subaerial scenarios of Tinti et al. 7 can be compared with our scenarios of similar volume, i.e. the 17.6 × 10 6 m 3 subaqueous slide and the 7.1 ×10 6 m 3 subaerial slide, respectively. " Under the same subheading, "Our 6 × 10 6 m 3 slide simulation generally overestimates the runups, which are better fitted by the 4 × 10 6 m 3 scenario (Fig. 5b). " now reads: "Our 7.1 × 10 6 m 3 slide simulation generally overestimates the runups, which are better fitted by the 4.7 × 10 6 m 3 scenario (Fig. 5b). " www.nature.com/scientificreports/ And, "Our worst scenario was triggered by an aerial slide of 30 × 10 6 m 3 , and it reaches a peak velocity of 80 m/s (Fig. 2) and its first perturbation hit Punta Lena in 2.5 minutes with a runup of 20 m.
now reads: "Our worst scenario was triggered by an aerial slide of 35.3 × 10 6 m 3 , and it reaches a peak velocity of 80 m/s (Fig. 2) and its first perturbation hit Punta Lena in 2.5 minutes with a runup of 20 m. In Figure 2, the key label "35.3 × 10 6 aerial slide" was incorrectly given as "30 × 10 6 m 3 aerial slide. " In Figure 3a,c,e, Figure 4b, and Figure. 5b, the key labels for "Vol" were incorrectly given.
The legend for Figure 3, "Wave shapes calculated at the monitoring gauges of PDC and PLB. Legends at PDC are also applies for PLB. Comparison between the waves generated by the aerial slide of 6 × 10 6 m 3 and the subaqueous slides of 15 × 10 6 m 3 are shown in frames (e,f). " now reads: "Wave shapes calculated at the monitoring gauges of PDC and PLB. Legends at PDC are also applies for PLB. Comparison between the waves generated by the aerial slide of 7.1 × 10 6 m 3 and the subaqueous slides of 17.6 × 10 6 m 3 are shown in frames (e,f). " The legend for Figure 4,