In “Tree-ring dating the 1700 Cascadia earthquake” by David K. Yamaguchi et al. (389, 922– 923; 1997 ) the final paragraph contained some ambiguity. A corrected version follows:
The dates provide a simple test of earthquake size. Suppose that the dates excluded January 1700. In that case, the tsunami in Japan could not represent a Cascadia rupture longer than the 650-km distance between the region of the dated snags and the far (California) end of the subduction zone. Because a 650-km-long rupture at Cascadia would be too small for magnitude 9 (ref. 7), dates excluding January 1700 would strengthen geophysical arguments8 against magnitude 9 earthquakes at Cascadia. By instead converging on January 1700, the dates mean that the northwestern United States and adjacent Canada are plausibly subject to earthquakes of magnitude 9.
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1038/40048
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Correction: A Tree-ring datingthe 1700 Cascadia earthquake . Nature 390, 352 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/37029
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/37029
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
