Letter | Published:

Decay of aftershock density with distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress

Naturevolume 441pages735738 (2006) | Download Citation



The majority of earthquakes are aftershocks1, yet aftershock physics is not well understood. Many studies suggest that static stress changes2,3 trigger aftershocks, but recent work suggests that shaking (dynamic stresses) may also play a role4,5. Here we measure the decay of aftershocks as a function of distance from magnitude 2–6 mainshocks in order to clarify the aftershock triggering process. We find that for short times after the mainshock, when low background seismicity rates allow for good aftershock detection, the decay is well fitted by a single inverse power law over distances of 0.2–50 km. The consistency of the trend indicates that the same triggering mechanism is working over the entire range. As static stress changes at the more distant aftershocks are negligible, this suggests that dynamic stresses may be triggering all of these aftershocks. We infer that the observed aftershock density is consistent with the probability of triggering aftershocks being nearly proportional to seismic wave amplitude. The data are not fitted well by models that combine static stress change with the evolution of frictionally locked faults3.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1

    Gardner, J. K. & Knopoff, L. Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 64, 1363–1367 (1974)

  2. 2

    Stein, R. S. The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. Nature 402, 605–609 (1999)

  3. 3

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

  4. 4

    Gomberg, J., Bodin, P. & Reasenberg, P. A. Observing earthquakes triggered in the near field by dynamic deformations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 118–138 (2003)

  5. 5

    Johnson, P. A. & Jia, X. Nonlinear dynamics, granular media and dynamic earthquake triggering. Nature 437, 871–874 (2005)

  6. 6

    Ichinose, G. A., Anderson, J. G. & Smith, K. D. Static stress change caused by the 1978 Diamond Valley, California and 1994 Double Spring Flat Nevada earthquakes. Eos 78, abstr. S22B-04 (1997)

  7. 7

    Ogata, Y. Statistical models for earthquake occurrence and residual analysis for point processes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 9–27 (1988)

  8. 8

    Huc, M. & Main, I. G. Anomalous stress diffusion in earthquake triggering: Correlation length, time-dependence, and directionality. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2324, doi:10.1029/2001JB001645 (2003)

  9. 9

    Shearer, P., Hauksson, E. & Lin, G. Southern California hypocenter relocation with waveform cross-correlation, part 2: Results using source-specific station terms and cluster analysis. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95, 904–915 (2005)

  10. 10

    Dodge, D. A., Beroza, G. C. & Ellsworth, W. L. Foreshock sequence of the 1992 Landers, California earthquake and its implications for earthquake nucleation. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 9865–9880 (1995)

  11. 11

    Rubin, A. M., Gillard, D. & Got, J. Streaks of microearthquakes along creeping faults. Nature 400, 635–641 (1999)

  12. 12

    Kagan, Y. Y. Short-term properties of earthquake catalogs and models of earthquake source. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, 1207–1228 (2004)

  13. 13

    Bak, P., Christensen, K., Danon, L. & Scanlon, T. Unified scaling law for earthquakes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 109901 (2002)

  14. 14

    Wells, D. L. & Coppersmith, K. J. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 974–1002 (1995)

  15. 15

    Schwarz, G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6, 461–464 (1978)

  16. 16

    Main, I. G., Leonard, T., Papasouliotis, O., Hatton, C. G. & Meredith, P. G. One slope or two? detecting statistically significant breaks of slope in geophysical data, with application to fracture scaling relationships. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 2801–2804 (1999)

  17. 17

    Vidale, J. E., Agnew, D. C., Johnston, M. J. S. & Oppenheimer, D. H. Absence of earthquake correlation with earth tides: An indication of high preseismic fault stress rate. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24567–24572 (1998)

  18. 18

    Omori, F. On the aftershocks of earthquakes. J. Coll. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo 7, 111–200 (1894)

  19. 19

    Kagan, Y. Y. & Knopoff, L. Spatial distribution of earthquakes: the two-point correlation function. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 62, 303–320 (1980)

  20. 20

    Helmstetter, A., Kagan, Y. Y. & Jackson, D. D. Importance of small earthquakes for stress transfers and earthquake triggering. J. Geophys. Res. 110, B05S08, doi:10.1029/2004JB003286 (2005)

  21. 21

    Campbell, K. W. Strong Motion Attenuation Relations (Academic, London, 2003)

  22. 22

    Richter, C. F. An instrumental earthquake-magnitude scale. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 25, 1–32 (1935)

  23. 23

    Kanamori, H. et al. Determination of earthquake energy release and M L using terrascope. Bull Seismol. Soc. Am. 83, 330–346 (1993)

  24. 24

    Michael, A. J. & Jones, L. M. Seismicity alert probabilities at Parkfield, California, revisited. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 117–130 (1998)

  25. 25

    Felzer, K. R., Abercrombie, R. E. & Ekström, G. A common origin for aftershocks, foreshocks, and multiplets. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, 88–98 (2004)

  26. 26

    Davidsen, J. & Paczuski, M. Analysis of the spatial distribution between successive earthquakes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 048501 (2005)

  27. 27

    Silverman, B. W. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis (Chapman and Hall, New York, 1986)

  28. 28

    Gutenberg, B. & Richter, C. F. Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 4, 185–188 (1944)

Download references


We thank R. Abercrombie, A. Felzer, N. Field, M. Gerstenberger, J. Gomberg, S. Gross, J. Hardebeck, M. Harrington, A. Helmstetter, S. Hough, L. Jones, Y. Kagan, H. Kanamori, I. Main, S. Prejean, P. Shearer, R. Stein, J. Vidale, K. Richards-Dinger and A. Yong for comments. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.

Author information


  1. US Geological Survey, Pasadena, 525 S. Wilson, California, 91106, USA

    • K. R. Felzer
  2. Department of Earth Science, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, California, 95060, USA

    • E. E. Brodsky


  1. Search for K. R. Felzer in:

  2. Search for E. E. Brodsky in:

Competing interests

Reprints and permissions information is available at npg.nature.com/reprintsandpermissions. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. R. Felzer.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Figures

    This file contains Supplementary Figures 1–9. The figures include information on data behaviour beyond the distances and times shown in the main paper, aftershocks in Japan and Northern California, comparison of the static stress change and rate and state friction aftershock model with data, a demonstration of aftershock location independence from mainshock magnitude, and discussion of data measurement technique. (PDF 895 kb)

About this article

Publication history



Issue Date



Further reading


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.