Author
Listed:
- Daniel Melnick
(Universidad Austral de Chile
Millennium Nucleus The Seismic Cycle Along Subduction Zones)
- Shaoyang Li
(GFZ Helmholtz Zentrum Potsdam
University of Iowa)
- Marcos Moreno
(Millennium Nucleus The Seismic Cycle Along Subduction Zones
GFZ Helmholtz Zentrum Potsdam
Universidad de Concepción)
- Marco Cisternas
(Millennium Nucleus The Seismic Cycle Along Subduction Zones
Universidad Católica de Valparaíso)
- Julius Jara-Muñoz
(Universität Potsdam)
- Robert Wesson
(U.S. Geological Survey)
- Alan Nelson
(U.S. Geological Survey)
- Juan Carlos Báez
(Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas)
- Zhiguo Deng
(GFZ Helmholtz Zentrum Potsdam)
Abstract
Great megathrust earthquakes arise from the sudden release of energy accumulated during centuries of interseismic plate convergence. The moment deficit (energy available for future earthquakes) is commonly inferred by integrating the rate of interseismic plate locking over the time since the previous great earthquake. But accurate integration requires knowledge of how interseismic plate locking changes decades after earthquakes, measurements not available for most great earthquakes. Here we reconstruct the post-earthquake history of plate locking at Guafo Island, above the seismogenic zone of the giant 1960 (Mw = 9.5) Chile earthquake, through forward modeling of land-level changes inferred from aerial imagery (since 1974) and measured by GPS (since 1994). We find that interseismic locking increased to ~70% in the decade following the 1960 earthquake and then gradually to 100% by 2005. Our findings illustrate the transient evolution of plate locking in Chile, and suggest a similarly complex evolution elsewhere, with implications for the time- and magnitude-dependent probability of future events.
Suggested Citation
Daniel Melnick & Shaoyang Li & Marcos Moreno & Marco Cisternas & Julius Jara-Muñoz & Robert Wesson & Alan Nelson & Juan Carlos Báez & Zhiguo Deng, 2018.
"Back to full interseismic plate locking decades after the giant 1960 Chile earthquake,"
Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
Handle:
RePEc:nat:natcom:v:9:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-018-05989-6
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05989-6
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:9:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-018-05989-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.