2010 Maule earthquake slip correlates with pre-seismic locking of Andean subduction zone

Abstract

The magnitude-8.8 Maule (Chile) earthquake of 27 February 2010 ruptured a segment of the Andean subduction zone megathrust that has been suspected to be of high seismic potential1,2,3,4,5,6. It is the largest earthquake to rupture a mature seismic gap in a subduction zone that has been monitored with a dense space-geodetic network before the event. This provides an image of the pre-seismically locked state of the plate interface of unprecedentedly high resolution, allowing for an assessment of the spatial correlation of interseismic locking with coseismic slip. Pre-seismic locking might be used to anticipate future ruptures in many seismic gaps6,7,8,9,10,11,12, given the fundamental assumption that locking and slip are similar. This hypothesis, however, could not be tested without the occurrence of the first gap-filling earthquake. Here we show evidence that the 2010 Maule earthquake slip distribution correlates closely with the patchwork of interseismic locking distribution as derived by inversion of global positioning system (GPS) observations during the previous decade. The earthquake nucleated in a region of high locking gradient and released most of the stresses accumulated in the area since the last major event in 1835. Two regions of high seismic slip (asperities) appeared to be nearly fully locked before the earthquake. Between these asperities, the rupture bridged a zone that was creeping interseismically with consistently low coseismic slip. The rupture stopped in areas that were highly locked before the earthquake but where pre-stress had been significantly reduced by overlapping twentieth-century earthquakes. Our work suggests that coseismic slip heterogeneity at the scale of single asperities should indicate the seismic potential of future great earthquakes, which thus might be anticipated by geodetic observations.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Tectonic setting of the study area, data, observations and results.
Figure 2: Similarity between coseismic slip and interseismic locking.
Figure 3: Relationship between pre, co- and postseismic deformation patterns.

References

  1. 1

    Lay, T. et al. Teleseismic inversion for rupture process of the 27 February 2010 Chile (Mw 8.8) earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37 L13301 10.1029/2010GL043379 (2010)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Nishenko, R. Seismic potential for large and great intraplate earthquakes along the Chilean and Southern Peruvian margins of South America: a quantitative reappraisal. J. Geophys. Res. 90, 3589–3615 (1985)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Nishenko, S. P. Circum-Pacific seismic potential: 1989–1999. Pure Appl. Geophys. 135, 169–259 (1991)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Beck, S., Barrientos, S., Kausel, E. & Reyes, M. Source characteristics of historic earthquakes along the central Chile subduction zone. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 11, 115–129 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Campos, J. et al. A seismological study of the 1835 seismic gap in south-central Chile. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 132, 177–195 (2002)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Ruegg, J. C. et al. Interseismic strain accumulation measured by GPS in the seismic gap between Constitución and Concepción in Chile. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 175, 78–85 (2009)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Savage, J. C., Lisowski, M. & Prescott, W. H. Strain accumulation in the Shumagin and Yakataga seismic gaps, Alaska. Science 231, 585–587 (1986)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Bürgmann, R. et al. Interseismic coupling and asperity distribution along the Kamchatka subduction zone. J. Geophys. Res. 110 B07405 10.1029/2005JB003648 (2005)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Murray, J. & Langbein, J. Slip on the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield, California, over two earthquake cycles, and the implications for seismic hazard. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 282–303 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Perfettini, H. et al. Seismic and aseismic slip on the Central Peru megathrust. Nature 465, 78–81 (2010)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Chlieh, M., Avouac, J. P., Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D. H. & Galetzka, J. Heterogeneous coupling of the Sumatran megathrust constrained by geodetic and paleogeodetic measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 113 B05305 10.1029/2007JB004981 (2008)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Konca, O. et al. Partial rupture of a locked patch of the Sumatra megathrust during the 2007 earthquake sequence. Nature 456, 631–635 (2008)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Fedotov, S. A. Regularities of the distribution of strong earthquakes in Kamchatka, the Kurile Islands, and northeastern Japan. Trudy Inst. Phys. Earth. Acad. Sci. USSR 36, 66–93 (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Mogi, K. Some features of recent seismic activity in and near Japan. (2) Activity before and after great earthquakes. Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. Univ. Tokyo 47, 395–417 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Sykes, L. R. Aftershock zones of great earthquakes, seismicity gaps, and earthquake prediction for Alaska and the Aleutians. J. Geophys. Res. 76, 8021–8041 (1971)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Kelleher, J., Sykes, L. & Oliver, J. Possible criteria for predicting earthquake locations and their application to major plate boundaries of the Pacific and the Caribbean. J. Geophys. Res. 78, 2547–2585 (1973)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    McNally, K. C. Seismic gaps in space and time. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 11, 359–369 (1983)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Kanamori, H. Mechanics of Earthquakes. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 22, 207–237 (1994)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Lomnitz, C. Grandes terremotos y tsunamis en Chile durante el periodo 1535–1955. Geofis. Panam. 1, 151–178 (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Kelleher, J. Rupture zones of large South American earthquakes and some predictions. J. Geophys. Res. 77, 2087–2103 (1972)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Darwin, C. Journal And Remarks 1832–1836: Narrative Of The Surveying Voyages Of His Majesty’s Ships Adventure And Beagle Between The Years 1826 And 1836, Describing Their Examination Of The Southern Shores Of South America, And The Beagle’s Circumnavigation. Vol. 3, 370–381 (Henry Colburn, 1839)

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Barrientos, S. E. Dual seismogenic behavior: the 1985 Central Chile earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 3541–3544 (1995)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Plafker, G. & Savage, J. C. Mechanism of the Chilean earthquake of May 21 and 22, 1960. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 81, 1001–1030 (1970)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Cifuentes, I. L. The 1960 Chilean earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 94, 665–680 (1989)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Tassara, A., Goetze, H.-J., Schmidt, S. & Hackney, R. Three-dimensional density model of the Nazca plate and the Andean continental margin. J. Geophys. Res. 111 B09404 10.1029/2005JB003976 (2006)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Hayes, G. Finite Fault Model. Updated Result of the Feb 27, 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile Earthquake. 〈http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/us2010tfan/finite_fault.php〉 (US Geological Survey/NEIC, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Shao, G. et al. Preliminary slip model of the Feb 27, 2010 Mw 8.9 Maule, Chile Earthquake. 〈http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/ji/big_earthquakes/2010/02/27/chile_2_27.html〉 (University of California Santa Barbara, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Sladen, A. & Owen, S. Preliminary Model Combining Teleseismic and GPS Data 02/27/2010 (Mw 8.8), Chile, 〈http://tectonics.caltech.edu/slip_history/2010_chile/prelim-gps.html〉 (Caltech/JPL, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Hanka, W. GEOFON Extended Virtual Networkhttp://geofon.gfz-potsdam.de/geofon/〉 (GFZ, German Research Centre for Geosciences, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Moreno, M. S., Bolte, J., Klotz, J. & Melnick, D. Impact of megathrust geometry on inversion of coseismic slip from geodetic data: application to the 1960 Chile earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 L16310 10.1029/2009GL039276 (2009)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Cloos, M. Thrust-type subduction-zone earthquakes and seamount asperities: a physical model for seismic rupture. Geology 20, 601–604 (1992)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Kaneko, Y., Avouac, J.-P. & Lapusta, N. Towards inferring earthquake patterns from geodetic observations of interseismic coupling. Nature Geosci. 3, 363–396 (2010)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Moreno, M. S., Klotz, J., Melnick, D., Echtler, H. & Bataille, K. Active faulting and heterogeneous deformation across a megathrust segment boundary from GPS data, south central Chile (36–39°S). Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9 Q12024 10.1029/2008GC002198 (2008)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Angermann, D., Klotz, J. & Reigber, C. Space-geodetic estimation of the Nazca–South America Euler vector. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 171, 329–334 (1999)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Klotz, J. et al. Earthquake cycle dominates contemporary crustal deformation in central and southern Andes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 193, 437–446 (2001)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Brooks, B. A. et al. Crustal motion in the Southern Andes (26°-36°S): do the Andes behave like a microplate? Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 4 10.1029/2003GC000505 (2003)

  37. 37

    Wang, K. et al. Crustal motion in the zone of the 1960 Chile earthquake: detangling earthquake cycle deformation and forearc-sliver translation. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 8 Q10010 10.1029/2007GC001721 (2007)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Vigny, C. et al. Upper plate deformation measured by GPS in the Coquimbo Gap, Chile. Earth Planet Inter. 175, 86–95 (2009)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Moreno, M. Active Deformation in the Southern Andes from GPS and FEM Models. PhD thesis, Technische Univ. Berlin. (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Hu, Y., Wang, K., He, J., Klotz, J. & Khazaradze, G. Three-dimensional viscoelastic finite element model for postseismic deformation of the great 1960 Chile earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 109, 1–14 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Cembrano, J., Herve, F. & Lavenu, A. The Liquiñe-Ofqui fault zone: a long-lived intra-arc fault system in southern Chile. Tectonophysics 259, 55–66 (1996)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Rosenau, M., Melnick, D. & Echtler, H. Kinematic constraints on intra-arc shear and strain partitioning in the Southern Andes between 38°S and 42°S latitude. Tectonics 25 TC4013 10.1029/2005TC001943 (2006)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    Melnick, D., Bookhagen, B., Echtler, H. & Strecker, M. Coastal deformation and great subduction earthquakes, Isla Santa Maria, Chile (37°S). Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 118, 1463–1480 (2006)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Klotz, J. et al. Long-term signals in the present-day deformation field of the Central and Southern Andes and constraints on the viscosity of the Earth’s upper mantle. In The Andes—Active Subduction Orogeny: Frontiers in Earth Sciences (eds Oncken, O. et al.) Ch. 4, 65–89 (Springer, 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Melosh, H. J. & Raefsky, A. A simple and efficient method for introducing faults into 787 finite element computations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 1391–1400 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Smith, W. H. F. & Sandwell, D. Global sea floor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings. Science 277, 1956–1962 (1997)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Bohm, M. et al. The Southern Andes between 36° S and 40°S latitude: seismicity and average velocities. Tectonophysics 356, 275–289 (2002)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48

    Lüth, S. et al. A crustal model along 39°S from a seismic refraction profile-ISSA 2000. Rev. Geol. Chile 30, 83–94 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Haberland, C., Rietbrock, A., Lange, D., Bataille, K. & Hofmann, S. Interaction between forearc and oceanic plate at the south-central Chilean margin as seen in local seismic data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 L23302 10.1029/2006GL028189 (2006)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Lange, D. et al. First seismic record for intra-arc strike-slip tectonics along the Liquiñe-Ofqui fault zone at the obliquely convergent plate margin of the southern Andes. Tectonophysics 455 14–24 10.1016/j.tecto.2008.04.014 (2008)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Gross, K. & Micksch, U. & the Tipteq Research Group. The reflection seismic survey of project TIPTEQ: the inventory of the Chilean subduction zone at 38.2° S. Geophys. J. Int. 172, 565–571 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    Watt, A. & Zhong, S. Observations of flexure and the rheology of oceanic lithosphere. Geophys. J. Int. 142, 855–875 (2000)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Christensen, N. Poisson’s ratio and crustal seismology. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 3139–3156 (1996)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Masterlack, T. Finite element model predictions of static deformation from dislocation sources in a subduction zone: sensitivities to homogeneous, isotropic, Poisson-solid, and half-space assumptions. J. Geophys. Res. 108 (B11). 10.1029/2002JB002296 (2003)

  55. 55

    Savage, J. C. A dislocation model of strain accumulation and release at a subduction zone. J. Geophys. Res. 88, 4984–4996 (1983)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Coseismic slip models used in the analysis were generously made available on the internet by the USGS, the UCSB and Caltech. We thank R. Bürgmann for his comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. Support by J. Bolte, J. Klotz and R. Kind is kindly acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.M. compiled the GPS data and developed the FEM for data inversion. M.R. analysed the pattern of locking, slip and aftershocks. M.R and M.M. wrote the paper. O.O. was involved in study design and contributed to geodynamic interpretation. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Onno Oncken.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Figures

This file contains Supplementary Figures 1-6 with legends. (PDF 6740 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moreno, M., Rosenau, M. & Oncken, O. 2010 Maule earthquake slip correlates with pre-seismic locking of Andean subduction zone. Nature 467, 198–202 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09349

Download citation

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

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