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:

Absence of remotely triggered large earthquakes beyond the mainshock region

Nature Geoscience volume 4, pages 312–316 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Large earthquakes are known to trigger earthquakes elsewhere. Damaging large aftershocks occur close to the mainshock and microearthquakes are triggered by passing seismic waves at significant distances from the mainshock1,2,3,4,5,6. It is unclear, however, whether bigger, more damaging earthquakes are routinely triggered at distances far from the mainshock, heightening the global seismic hazard after every large earthquake. Here we assemble a catalogue of all possible earthquakes greater than M 5 that might have been triggered by every M 7 or larger mainshock during the past 30 years. We compare the timing of earthquakes greater than M 5 with the temporal and spatial passage of surface waves generated by large earthquakes using a complete worldwide catalogue. Whereas small earthquakes are triggered immediately during the passage of surface waves at all spatial ranges, we find no significant temporal association between surface-wave arrivals and larger earthquakes. We observe a significant increase in the rate of seismic activity at distances confined to within two to three rupture lengths of the mainshock. Thus, we conclude that the regional hazard of larger earthquakes is increased after a mainshock, but the global hazard is not.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Figure 1: Time and distance distribution (to 6,000 km) of large (5<M<7) aftershocks from 205 M≥7 mainshocks.
Figure 2: Earthquake density (number km−2) as a function of time and distance.
Figure 3: Timing of global 5<M<7 earthquake rate increase following M≥7 triggers at ≥300 km distances.
Figure 4: Observed 5<M<7 earthquake rate increase versus distance.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hill, D. P. et al. Seismicity in the western United States remotely triggered by the M 7.4 Landers, California, earthquake of June 28, 1992. Science 260, 1617–1623 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brodsky, E. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gomberg, J., Reasenberg, P., Bodin, P. & Harris, R. Earthquake triggering by transient seismic waves following the landers and hector mine, California earthquakes. Nature 411, 462–466 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gomberg, J., Bodin, P., Larson, K. & Dragert, H. Earthquake nucleation by transient deformations caused by the M=7.9 Denali, Alaska, earthquake. Nature 427, 621–624 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. West, M., Sanchez, J. J. & McNutt, S. R. Periodically triggered seismicity at Mount Wrangell, Alaska, after the Sumatra earthquake. Science 308, 1144–1146 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Miyazawa, M. & Mori, J. Detection of triggered deep low-frequency events from the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L10307 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rubinstein, J. L. et al. Non-volcanic tremor driven by large transient shear stresses. Nature 448, 579–582 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. Peng, Z. & Chao, K. Non-volcanic tremor beneath the Central Range in Taiwan triggered by the 2001 Mw 7.8 Kunlun earthquake. Geophys. J. Int. 175, 825–829 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gomberg, J., Rubinstein, J. L., Peng, Z., Creager, K. C. & Vidale, J. E. Widespread triggering of non-volcanic tremor in California. Science 319, 173 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Velasco, A. A., Hernandez, S., Parsons, T. & Pankow, K. The ubiquitous nature of dynamic triggering. Nature Geosci. 1, 375–379 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Iwata, T. Low detection capability of global earthquakes after the occurrence of large earthquakes: Investigation of the Harvard CMT catalogue. Geophys. J. Int. 174, 849–856 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris, R. A. Introduction to special section: Stress triggers, stress shadows, and implications for seismic hazard. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24347–24358 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Parsons, T. Global Omori law decay of triggered earthquakes: Large aftershocks outside the classical aftershock zone. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 2199 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellsworth, W. L. & Beroza, G. C. Seismic evidence for an earthquake nucleation phase. Science 268, 851–855 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hill, D. P. Dynamic stresses, Coulomb failure, and remote triggering. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, 66–92 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ziv, A. What controls the spatial distribution of remote aftershocks? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 2231–2241 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Brodsky, R. Stein, S. Toda and N. van der Elst for critical comments on written and oral versions of this presentation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Geological Survey, MS-999, 345 Middlefield Rd, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA

    Tom Parsons

  2. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at EI Paso, EI Paso, Texas 79968-0555, USA

    Aaron A. Velasco

Authors
  1. Tom Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aaron A. Velasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.P. and A.A.V. wrote the manuscript collaboratively. T.P. wrote the catalogue search and distance range codes. A.A.V. developed the concept of GSN waveform filtering for remote triggered earthquakes enabling a comparison of large and small events.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Parsons.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 513 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parsons, T., Velasco, A. Absence of remotely triggered large earthquakes beyond the mainshock region. Nature Geosci 4, 312–316 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1110

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1110

This article is cited by

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