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 does not indicate triggering by dynamic stress

Abstract

Resolving whether static1,2,3 or dynamic4,5,6,7,8 stress triggers most aftershocks and subsequent mainshocks is essential to understand earthquake interaction and to forecast seismic hazard9. Felzer and Brodsky10 examined the distance distribution of earthquakes occurring in the first five minutes after 2 ≤ M < 3 and 3 ≤ M < 4 mainshocks and found that their magnitude M ≥ 2 aftershocks showed a uniform power-law decay with slope −1.35 out to 50 km from the mainshocks. From this they argued that the distance decay could be explained only by dynamic triggering. Here we propose an alternative explanation for the decay, and subject their hypothesis to a series of tests, none of which it passes. At distances more than 300 m from the 2 ≤ M < 3 mainshocks, the seismicity decay 5 min before the mainshocks is indistinguishable from the decay five minutes afterwards, indicating that the mainshocks have no effect at distances outside their static triggering range. Omori temporal decay, the fundamental signature of aftershocks, is absent at distances exceeding 10 km from the mainshocks. Finally, the distance decay is found among aftershocks that occur before the arrival of the seismic wave front from the mainshock, which violates causality. We argue that Felzer and Brodsky10 implicitly assume that the first of two independent aftershocks along a fault rupture triggers the second, and that the first of two shocks in a creep- or intrusion-driven swarm triggers the second, when this need not be the case.

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

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: Alternative explanations for the distance decay of seismicity density.
Figure 2: Distance decay in Japan during 5-min and 1-s periods.
Figure 3: Comparison of earthquakes 5 min before and after mainshocks.
Figure 4: Omori decay for near-field and remote seismicity.
Figure 5: Map of nominal ‘mainshock–aftershock’ pairs.

References

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Toda, S., Stein, R. S., Richards-Dinger, K. & Bozkurt, S. Forecasting the evolution of seismicity in southern California: animations built on earthquake stress transfer. J. Geophys. Res. 110 B05S16 10.1029/2004JB003415 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Parsons, T. Global observation of Omori-law decay in the rate of triggered earthquakes: large aftershocks outside the classical aftershock zone. J. Geophys. Res. 107 10.1029/2001JB000646 (2002)

  4. Hill, D. P. et al. Seismicity remotely triggered by the magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, earthquake. Science 260, 1617–1623 (1993)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kilb, D. A strong correlation between induced peak dynamic coulomb stress change from the 1992 M7.3 Landers, California, earthquake and the hypocenter of the 1999 M7.1 Hector Mine, California earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 10.1029/2001JB000678 (2003)

  6. Brodsky, E. E. & Prejean, S. G. New constraints on mechanisms of remotely triggered seismicity at long valley caldera. J. Geophys. Res. 110 B04302 04310.01029/02004JB003211 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gomberg, J. & Johnson, P. Dynamic triggering of earthquakes. Nature 437, 830 (2005)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hill, D. P. & Prejean, S. G. in Treatise on Geophsyics (ed. Kanamori, H.) Vol. 4, 257–291 (Elsevier, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Freed, A. M. Earthquake triggering by static, dynamic, and postseismic stress transfer. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 33, 335–367 (2005)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Felzer, K. R. & Brodsky, E. E. Decay of aftershock density with distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress. Nature 441, 735–738 (2006)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hardebeck, J. L., Nazareth, J. J. & Hauksson, E. The static stress change triggering model: constraints from two southern California aftershocks sequences. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24427–24437 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ma, K.-F., Chan, C.-H. & Stein, R. S. Response of seismicity to coulomb stress triggers and shadows of the 1999 Mw = 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 110 10.1029/2004JB003389 (2005)

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

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cochran, E. S., Vidale, J. E. & Tanaka, S. Earth tides can trigger shallow thrust fault earthquakes. Science 306, 1164–1166 (2004)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brodsky, E., Karakostas, V. & Kanamori, H. A new observation of dynamically triggered regional seismicity: Earthquakes in Greece following the August, 1999 Izmit, Turkey earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 2741–2744 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Velasco, A. A., Hernandez, S., Parsons, T. & Pankow, K. Global ubiquity of dynamic earthquake triggering. Nature Geosci. 1 375–379 10.1038/ngeo204 (2008)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Miyazawa, M. & Brodsky, E. E. Deep low-frequency tremor that correlates with passing surface waves. J. Geophys. Res. 113 B01307 01310.01029/02006JB004890 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jennings, P. C. & Kanamori, H. Effect of distance on local magnitudes found from strong-motion records. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 73, 265–280 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Felzer, K. R., Abercrombie, R. E. & Ekström, G. Secondary aftershocks and their importance for aftershock forecasting. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 1433–1448 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Abercrombie, R. E. Earthquake source scaling relationships from -1 to 5 ml using seismograms recorded at 2.5-km depth. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 24015–24036 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Marsan, D. & Lengliné, O. Extending earthquakes’ reach through cascading. Science 319, 1076–1079 (2008)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hill, D. P., Johnston, M. J. S., Langbein, J. O. & Bilham, R. Response of Long Valley caldera to the Mw = 7.3 Landers, California, earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 12985–13005 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Toda, S., Stein, R. S. & Sagiya, T. Evidence from the A.D. 2000 Izu Islands swarm that seismicity is governed by stressing rate. Nature 419, 58–61 (2002)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Vidale, J. E. & Shearer, P. M. A survey of 71 earthquake bursts across southern California: exploring the role of pore fluid pressure fluctuations and aseismic slip as drivers. J. Geophys. Res. 111 B05312 05310.01029/02005JB004034 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lohman, R. B. & McGuire, J. J. Earthquake swarms driven by aseismic creep in the Salton trough, California. J. Geophys. Res. 112 B04405 04410.01029/02006JB004596 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Woessner, J. & Wiemer, S. Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogues: estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95, 684–698 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wiemer, S. & Wyss, M. Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the western United States, and Japan. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, 859–869 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Helmstetter, A. & Sornette, D. Subcritical and supercritical regimes in epidemic models of earthquake aftershocks. J. Geophys. Res. 107 2237 10.1029/2001JB001580 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Felzer, K., Abercrombie, R. & Ekström, G. Secondary aftershocks and their importance for aftershock forecasting. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 1433–1448 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kendall, M. & Stuart, A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics Vol. 1 Distribution Theory Ch. 1 (Hafner, 1969)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Peng, Z. & Zhao, P. Migration of early aftershocks following the 2004 parkfield earthquake. Nature Geosci. 2 10.1038/ngeo1697 (2009)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Felzer, E. Brodsky, D. Jackson, S. Steacy, J. Hardebeck, R. Harris, and I. Main for comprehensive reviews; and Z. Peng, J. Vidale and Y. Okada for comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith Richards-Dinger.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Figures 1-8 with legends. (PDF 5065 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Richards-Dinger, K., Stein, R. & Toda, S. Decay of aftershock density with distance does not indicate triggering by dynamic stress. Nature 467, 583–586 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09402

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09402

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

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