Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Analysing the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes with recent instrumentally recorded aftershocks

Nature volume 429, pages 284–288 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

Although dynamic stress changes associated with the passage of seismic waves are thought to trigger earthquakes at great distances, more than 60 per cent of all aftershocks appear to be triggered by static stress changes within two rupture lengths of a mainshock1,2,3,4,5. The observed distribution of aftershocks may thus be used to infer details of mainshock rupture geometry6. Aftershocks following large mid-continental earthquakes, where background stressing rates are low, are known to persist for centuries7,8, and models based on rate-and-state friction laws provide theoretical support for this inference9. Most past studies of the New Madrid earthquake sequence have indeed assumed ongoing microseismicity to be a continuing aftershock sequence10,11,12. Here we use instrumentally recorded aftershock locations and models of elastic stress change to develop a kinematically consistent rupture scenario for three of the four largest earthquakes of the 1811–1812 New Madrid sequence. Our results suggest that these three events occurred on two contiguous faults, producing lobes of increased stress near fault intersections and end points, in areas where present-day microearthquakes have been hitherto interpreted as evidence of primary mainshock rupture. We infer that the remaining New Madrid mainshock may have occurred more than 200 km north of this region in the Wabash Valley of southern Indiana and Illinois—an area that contains abundant modern microseismicity, and where substantial liquefaction was documented by historic accounts. Our results suggest that future large mid-plate earthquake sequences may extend over a much broader region than previously suspected.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Map of the New Madrid seismic zone as illustrated by microseismicity between 1974 and 1996.
Figure 2: Sequential Coulomb failure stress associated with hypothesized ruptures.
Figure 3: Elastic stress field at 12 km depth produced by NM1, NM1A and NM3 in 1811––1812.
Figure 4: Mercalli intensities inferred for NM2, 23 January 1812, with symbols centred on towns.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnston, A. C. & Schweig, E. S. The enigma of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811–1812. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 24, 339–384 (1996)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kilb, D., Gomberg, J. & Bodin, P. Triggering of earthquake aftershocks by dynamic stresses. Nature 408, 570–574 (2000)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Das, S. & Scholz, C. H. Off-fault aftershock clusters caused by shear-stress increase. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 1669–1675 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Reasenberg, P. A. & Jones, L. M. Earthquake hazard after a mainshock in California. Science 243, 1173–1176 (1989)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Toda, S., Stein, R. S., Reasenberg, P. A., Dieterich, J. H. & Yoshida, A. Stress transferred from the 1995 Mw = 6.9 Kobe Japan, shock: Effect on aftershocks and future earthquake probabilities. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24,543–24,565 (1998)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Seeber, L. & Armbruster, J. G. Earthquakes as beacons of stress change. Nature 407, 69–72 (2000)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ebel, J., Bonjer, E. & Oncescu, M. Paleoseismicity: Seismicity evidence for past large earthquakes. Seismol. Res. Lett. 71, 283–294 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gan, W. & Prescott, W. H. Crustal deformation rates in central and eastern U.S. inferred from GPS. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 3733–3736 (2001)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dieterich, J. A constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 2601–2618 (1994)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nuttli, O. W. The Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811 and 1812: Intensities, ground motion, and magnitudes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 63, 227–248 (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mueller, K. & Pujol, J. Three-dimensional geometry of the Reelfoot blind thrust: implications for moment release and earthquake magnitude in the New Madrid seismic zone. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91, 1563–1573 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnston, A. C. Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions III, New Madrid 1811–1812, Charleston 1886, and Lisbon 1755. Geophys. J. Int. 126, 314–344 (1996)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Guccione, M. J., VanArsdale, R. B. & Hehr, L. H. Origin and age of the Manila high and associated Big Lake “sunklands” in the New Madrid seismic zone, northeastern Arkansas. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 112, 579–590 (2000)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hough, S. E., Armbruster, J. G., Seeber, L. & Hough, J. F. On the modified Mercalli intensities and magnitudes of the 1811–1812 New Madrid, central United States earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 23839–23864 (2000)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Baldwin, J. N., Barron, A. D., Kelson, K. I., Harris, J. B. & Cashman, S. Preliminary paleoseismic and geophysical investigation of the north Farrenburg lineament: Primary tectonic deformation associated with the New Madrid North fault? Seismol. Res. Lett. 73, 393–413 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Odum, J. K., Stephenson, W. J., Shedlock, K. M. & Pratt, T. L. Near-surface structural model for deformation associated with the February 7, 1812, New Madrid, Missouri, earthquake. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 110, 149–162 (1998)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Arsdale, R. B., Kelson, K. I. & Lumsden, C. H. Northern extension of the Tennessee Reelfoot scarp into Kentucky and Missouri. Seismol. Res. Lett 65, 57–62 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelson, K. I., Simpson, G. D., VanArsdale, R. B., Haraden, C. C. & Lettis, W. R. Multiple late Holocene earthquakes along the Reelfoot fault, central New Madrid seismic zone. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 6151–6170 (1992)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Guccione, M. J. et al. Stream response to repeated coseismic folding, Tiptonville Dome, western Tennessee. Geomorph 43, 313–349 (2002)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gomberg, J. & Ellis, M. Topography and tectonics of the central New Madrid seismic zone: Results of numerical experiments using a three-dimensional boundary element program. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 20299–20310 (1994)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bakun, W. H. & Wentworth, C. M. Estimating earthquake location and magnitude from seismic intensity data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 1502–1521 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hough, S. E. & Martin, S. Magnitude estimates of two large aftershocks of the 16 December 1811 New Madrid earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 3259–3268 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Berry, D. L. The Illinois earthquake of 1811 and 1812. Illinois State Hist. Soc. Trans. 12, 74–78 (1908)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Stauder, W. & Nuttli, O. W. Seismic studies—south-central Illinois earthquake of November 9, 1968. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 60, 973–981 (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hough, S. E. Triggered earthquakes and the 1811–1812 New Madrid, central U.S. earthquake sequence. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91, 1574–1581 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tuttle, M. P. The use of liquefaction features in paleoseismology: Lessons learned in the New Madrid seismic zone, central United States. J. Seismol. 5, 361–380 (2001)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pavlis, G. L., Rudman, A. J., Pope, B. P., Hamburger, M. W. & Bear, G. W. Seismicity of the Wabash Valley seismic zone based on a temporary seismic array experiment. Seismol. Res. Lett. 73, 751–761 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support for this work was provided to R.B. by the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 80309-0399, USA

    Karl Mueller & Roger Bilham

  2. US Geological Survey, 525 South Wilson Ave, California, 91030, Pasadena, USA

    Susan E. Hough

  3. CIRES University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 80309-0216, USA

    Roger Bilham

Authors
  1. Karl Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan E. Hough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roger Bilham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karl Mueller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mueller, K., Hough, S. & Bilham, R. Analysing the 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes with recent instrumentally recorded aftershocks. Nature 429, 284–288 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02557

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02557

This article is cited by

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.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing