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.

Decay of aftershock density with distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress

Abstract

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.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Combined aftershocks of M = 3–4 mainshocks.
Figure 2: Distance from the mainshock hypocentre versus aftershock linear density.
Figure 3: Aftershock density versus distance from the closest point on the fault planes of M = 5–6 mainshocks.
Figure 4: Distance versus earthquake linear density for a time-randomized catalogue.

References

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. R. Felzer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

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

Supplementary information

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)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Felzer, K., Brodsky, E. Decay of aftershock density with distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress. Nature 441, 735–738 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04799

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04799

Further reading

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

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