Article

Chilean megathrust earthquake recurrence linked to frictional contrast at depth

  • Nature Geosciencevolume 11pages285290 (2018)
  • doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0089-5
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Fundamental processes of the seismic cycle in subduction zones, including those controlling the recurrence and size of great earthquakes, are still poorly understood. Here, by studying the 2016 earthquake in southern Chile—the first large event within the rupture zone of the 1960 earthquake (moment magnitude (Mw) = 9.5)—we show that the frictional zonation of the plate interface fault at depth mechanically controls the timing of more frequent, moderate-size deep events (Mw < 8) and less frequent, tsunamigenic great shallow earthquakes (Mw > 8.5). We model the evolution of stress build-up for a seismogenic zone with heterogeneous friction to examine the link between the 2016 and 1960 earthquakes. Our results suggest that the deeper segments of the seismogenic megathrust are weaker and interseismically loaded by a more strongly coupled, shallower asperity. Deeper segments fail earlier (~60 yr recurrence), producing moderate-size events that precede the failure of the shallower region, which fails in a great earthquake (recurrence >110 yr). We interpret the contrasting frictional strength and lag time between deeper and shallower earthquakes to be controlled by variations in pore fluid pressure. Our integrated analysis strengthens understanding of the mechanics and timing of great megathrust earthquakes, and therefore could aid in the seismic hazard assessment of other subduction zones.

  • Subscribe to Nature Geoscience for full access:

    $59

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

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

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

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

  4. 4.

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

  5. 5.

    Loveless, J. P. & Meade, B. Spatial correlation of interseismic coupling and coseismic rupture extent of the 2011 M w =9.0 Tohoku-oki earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L17306 (2011).

  6. 6.

    Kaneko, Y., Avouac, J. & Lapusta, N. Towards inferring earthquake patterns from geodetic observations of interseismic coupling. Nat. Geosci. 3, 363–369 (2010).

  7. 7.

    Wang, K. & Bilek, S. Do subducting seamounts generate or stop large earthquakes? Geology 39, 819–822 (2011).

  8. 8.

    Kopp, H. Invited review paper: the control of subduction zone structural complexity and geometry on margin segmentation and seismicity. Tectonophysics 589, 1–16 (2013).

  9. 9.

    Ruff, L. Do trench sediments affect great earthquake occurrence in subduction zones? PAGEOPH 129, 263–282 (1989).

  10. 10.

    Saffer, D. M. & Tobin, H. J. Hydrogeology and mechanics of subduction zone forearcs: fluid flow and pore pressure. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 39, 157–186 (2011).

  11. 11.

    Audet, P. & Schwartz, S. Hydrologic control of forearc strength and seismicity in the Costa Rican subduction zone. Nat. Geosci. 6, 852–855 (2013).

  12. 12.

    Moreno, M. et al. Locking of the Chile subduction zone controlled by fluid pressure before the 2010 earthquake. Nat. Geosci. 7, 292–296 (2014).

  13. 13.

    Saffer, D. M. Mapping fluids to subduction megathrust locking and slip behavior. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 9337–9340 (2017).

  14. 14.

    Song, T. R. A. & Simons, M. Large trench-parallel gravity variations predict seismogenic behavior in subduction zones. Science 301, 630–633 (2003).

  15. 15.

    Wells, R. E., Blakely, R. J., Sugiyama, Y., Scholl, D. W. & Dinterman, P. A. Basin-centred asperities in great subduction zone earthquakes: a link between slip, subsidence, and subduction erosion. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2507–2537 (2003).

  16. 16.

    Bassett, D., Sandwell, D., Fialko, Y. & Watts, A. Upper-plate controls on co-seismic slip in the 2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-oki earthquake. Nature 531, 92–96 (2016).

  17. 17.

    Angiboust, S. et al. Probing the transition between seismically coupled and decoupled segments along an ancient subduction interface. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 1905–1922 (2015).

  18. 18.

    Gao, X. & Wang, K. Rheological separation of the megathrust seismogenic zone and episodic tremor and slip. Nature 543, 416–419 (2017).

  19. 19.

    Ruiz, S. et al. Reawakening of large earthquakes in south central Chile: the 2016 M w 7.6 Chiloé‚ event. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 6633–6640 (2017).

  20. 20.

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

  21. 21.

    Barrientos, S. & Ward, S. The 1960 Chile earthquake: inversion for slip distribution from surface deformation. Geophys. J. Int 103, 589–598 (1990).

  22. 22.

    Barrientos, S. Slip distribution of the 1985 Central Chile earthquake. Tectonophysics 145, 225–241 (1988).

  23. 23.

    Pritchard, M. E. et al. Geodetic, teleseismic, and strong motion constraints on slip from recent southern Peru subduction zone earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B03307 (2007).

  24. 24.

    Motagh, M. et al. Subduction earthquake deformation associated with 14 November 2007, M w 7.8 Tocopilla earthquake in Chile: results from InSAR and aftershocks. Tectonophysics 490, 66–68 (2010).

  25. 25.

    Schurr, B. et al. The 2007 M7.7 Tocopilla northern Chile earthquake sequence: Implications for along-strike and downdip rupture segmentation and megathrust frictional behavior. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B05305 (2012).

  26. 26.

    Lay, T. et al. Depth-varying rupture properties of subduction zone megathrust faults. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B04311 (2012).

  27. 27.

    Allen, T., Marano, K., Earle, P. & Wald, D. PAGER-CAT: a composite earthquake catalog for calibrating global fatality models. Seismol. Res. Lett. 80, 57–62 (2009).

  28. 28.

    Moreno, M. et al. Heterogeneous plate locking in the South-Central Chile subduction zone: building up the next great earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 305, 413–424 (2011).

  29. 29.

    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 (2009).

  30. 30.

    Lange, D. et al. Seismicity and geometry of the south Chilean subduction zone (41.5°S-43.5°S): Implications for controlling parameters. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L06311 (2007).

  31. 31.

    Völker, D., Grevemeyer, I., Stipp, M., Wang, K. & He, J. Thermal control of the seismogenic zone of southern central Chile. J. Geophys. Res. 116, B10305 (2011).

  32. 32.

    Bassett, D. & Watts, A. Gravity anomalies, crustal structure, and seismicity at subduction zones: 1. seafloor roughness and subducting relief. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 1508–1540 (2015).

  33. 33.

    Fuller, C., Willett, S. & Brandon, M. Formation of forearc basins and their influence on subduction zone earthquakes. Geology 34, 65–68 (2006).

  34. 34.

    Scholz, C. H. Earthquakes and friction laws. Nature 391, 37–42 (1998).

  35. 35.

    Kanda, R. & Simons, M. An elastic plate model for interseismic deformation in subduction zones. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B03405 (2010).

  36. 36.

    Perfettini, H. & Ampuero, J. P. Dynamics of a velocity strengthening fault region: Implications for slow earthquakes and postseismic slip. J. Geophys. Res. 113, B09411 (2008).

  37. 37.

    Rice, J., Sammis, C. & Parsons, R. Off-fault secondary failure induced by a dynamic slip pulse. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 109–134 (1995).

  38. 38.

    Hetland, E. A. & Simons, M. Post-seismic and interseismic fault creep ii: transient creep and interseismic stress shadows on megathrusts. Geophys. J. Int. 181, 99–112 (2010).

  39. 39.

    Hasegawa, A., Yoshida, K. & Okada, T. Nearly complete stress drop in the 2011 M w 9.0 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake. Earth Planet. Sp. 63, 35 (2011).

  40. 40.

    Gao, X. & Wang, K. Strength of stick-slip and creeping subduction megathrusts from heat flow observations. Science 345, 1038–1041 (2014).

  41. 41.

    Cisternas, M. et al. Predecessors of the giant 1960 Chile earthquake. Nature 437, 404–407 (2005).

  42. 42.

    K. Hubbert, M. & Rubey, W. Role of fluid pressure in mechanics of overthrust faulting: I. Mechanics of fluid-filled porous solids and its application to overthrust faulting. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 70, 115–166 (1959).

  43. 43.

    Bachmann, R. et al. Exposed plate interface in the European Alps reveals fabric styles and gradients related to an ancient seismogenic coupling zone. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B05402 (2009).

  44. 44.

    Glodny, J. et al. Differential Late Paleozoic active margin evolution in south-central Chile (37-40°S) - the Lanalhue Fault Zone. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 26, 397–4110 (2008).

  45. 45.

    Groß, K., Micksch, U. & Group, T. R. 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).

  46. 46.

    Melnick, M. Rise of the central Andean coast by earthquakes straddling the Moho. Nat. Geosci. 9, 401–407 (2016).

  47. 47.

    Deng, Z., Gendt, G. & Schöne, T. in IAG 150 Years Vol. 143 (eds Rizos, C. & Willis, P.) 33–40 (Springer, Cham, 2015).

  48. 48.

    Metzger, S. et al. Present kinematics of the Tjörnes Fracture Zone, North Iceland, from campaign and continuous GPS measurements. Geophys. J. Int. 192, 441–455 (2013).

  49. 49.

    Bevis, M. & Brown, A. Trajectory models and reference frames for crustal motion geodesy. J. Geod. 88, 283–311 (2014).

  50. 50.

    Geirsson, H. et al. Current plate movements across the Mid-Atlantic Ridge determined from 5 years of continuous GPS measurements in Iceland. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B09407 (2006).

  51. 51.

    Wegmuller, U. & Werner, C. Gamma SAR processor and interferometry software. In 3rd ERS Symp. Space Serv. Environ. (eds Guyenne, T. D. & Danesy, D.) 1687–1692 (ESA, Noordwijk, 1997).

  52. 52.

    Scheiber, R. & Moreira, A. Coregistration of interferometric SAR images using spectral diversity. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 38, 2179–2191 (2000).

  53. 53.

    Guarnieri, A. & Prati, C. Scansar focusing and interferometry. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 34, 1029–1038 (1996).

  54. 54.

    Farr, T. & Kobrick, M. Shuttle radar topography mission produces a wealth of data. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. 81, 583–585 (2000).

  55. 55.

    Costantini, M. A novel phase unwrapping method based on network programming. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 36, 813–821 (1998).

  56. 56.

    Jónsson, S., Zebker, H., Segall, P. & Amelung, F. Fault slip distribution of the 1999 M w 7.1 Hector Mine, California, earthquake, estimated from satellite radar and GPS measurements. Seismol. Soc. Am. Bull. 92, 1377–1389 (2002).

  57. 57.

    Sudhaus, H. & J¢nsson, S. Improved source modelling through combined use of InSAR and GPS under consideration of correlated data errors: application to the June 2000 Kleifarvatn earthquake, Iceland. Geophys. J. Int. 176, 389–404 (2009).

  58. 58.

    Tassara, A. & Echaurren, A. Anatomy of the Andean subduction zone: three-dimensional density model upgraded and compared against global-scale models. Geophys. J. Int. 189, 161–168 (2012).

  59. 59.

    Okada, Y. Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 82, 1018–1040 (1992).

  60. 60.

    Cavalie, O. et al. Slow slip event in the Mexican subduction zone: evidence of shallower slip in the Guerrero seismic gap for the 2006 event revealed by the joint inversion of InSAR and GPS data. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 367, 52–60 (2013).

  61. 61.

    Grant, M. C. & Boyd, S. P. in Recent Advances in Learning and Control (eds Blondel, V. et al.) 95–110 (Springer, London, 2008).

  62. 62.

    Kissling, E., Ellsworth, W. L., Eberhart-Phillips, D. & Kradolfer, U. Initial reference models in local earthquake tomography. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 19635–19646 (1994).

  63. 63.

    Nabelek, J. & Xia, G. Moment-tensor analysis using regional data: application to the 25 March, 1993, Scotts Mills, Oregon, Earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 13–16 (1995).

  64. 64.

    Reichert, C., Schreckenberger, B. & SPOC Team. Fahrtbericht SONNE-Fahrt SO-161 Leg 2 and 3 SPOC -Subduktionsprozesse vor Chile- BMBF-Forschungsvorhaben 03G0161A Valparaiso 16.10.2001–Valparaiso 29.11.2001 (Bundesanst. für Geowis. und Rohstoffe, 2002).

  65. 65.

    Aagaard, B., Knepley, M. & Williams, C. A domain decomposition approach to implementing fault slip in finite-element models of quasi-static and dynamic crustal deformation. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 3059–3079 (2013).

  66. 66.

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

  67. 67.

    Li, S., Moreno, M., Rosenau, M., Melnick, D. & Oncken, O. Splay fault triggering by great subduction earthquakes inferred from finite element models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 385–391 (2014).

  68. 68.

    King, G. P., Stein, R. & Lin, J. Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 935–953 (1994).

  69. 69.

    Lamb, S. Shear stresses on megathrusts: Implications for mountain building behind subduction zones. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B07401 (2006).

  70. 70.

    Gutknecht, B. D. et al. Structure and state of stress of the Chilean subduction zone from terrestrial and satellite-derived gravity and gravity gradient data. Surv. Geophys. 35, 1417–1440 (2014).

  71. 71.

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) grants MO3157/2-3 (M.M., J.R.B.) and SCHU2460/3-1 (C.S.), Millennium Scientific Initiative (ICM) grant NC160025 "CYCLO - the seismic cycle along subduction zones" (D.M., A.T.), Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) grant PAI-MEC 2016 (M.M.), FONDECYT 1150321 (D.M.), and Helmholtz Graduate Research School GeoSim (S.L.). ALOS original data are copyright of the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency and provided under proposal 1161 (M.Mo.). This study was encouraged by discussions with B. Schurr and I. Urrutia. We thank Armada de Chile for hosting our cGPS stations GUAF (Faro Guafo) and MELK (Melinka).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. GFZ Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, German Research Centre for Geosciences, Telegrafenberg, Potsdam, Germany

    • M. Moreno
    • , S. Li
    • , J. R. Bedford
    • , M. Motagh
    • , S. Metzger
    • , C. Sippl
    • , Z. Deng
    •  & O. Oncken
  2. Departamento de Geofísica, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

    • M. Moreno
  3. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    • S. Li
  4. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra, TAQUACH, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile

    • D. Melnick
  5. Millennium Nucleus The Seismic Cycle Along Subduction Zones, Valdivia, Concepción, Chile

    • D. Melnick
    •  & A. Tassara
  6. Centro Sismológico National, Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Santiago, Chile

    • J. C. Baez
  7. Institute of Photogrammetry and GeoInformation, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany

    • M. Motagh
    •  & S. Vajedian
  8. Institut für Planetare Geodäsie, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    • B.D. Gutknecht
  9. Departamento de Geofísica, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    • E. Contreras-Reyes
  10. Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

    • A. Tassara

Authors

  1. Search for M. Moreno in:

  2. Search for S. Li in:

  3. Search for D. Melnick in:

  4. Search for J. R. Bedford in:

  5. Search for J. C. Baez in:

  6. Search for M. Motagh in:

  7. Search for S. Metzger in:

  8. Search for S. Vajedian in:

  9. Search for C. Sippl in:

  10. Search for B.D. Gutknecht in:

  11. Search for E. Contreras-Reyes in:

  12. Search for Z. Deng in:

  13. Search for A. Tassara in:

  14. Search for O. Oncken in:

Contributions

M.M. and S.L. conceived the original idea, which was elaborated with J.R.B., D.M. and O.O. M.M. and S.L performed all numerical simulations. J.R.B. performed the slip inversions. S.M., M.Mo. and S.V. processed the InSAR data. J.C.B. and Z.D. processed the GPS data. S.M. performed the time series analysis of GPS data. B.D.G. performed the stress anomaly model. C.S. processed the seismological data. E.C. performed the processing of seismic reflection data. D.M. installed cGPS stations. The manuscript was written by M.M. with comments from D.M., J.R.B., S.L., C.S., S.M., O.O., E.C. and A.T.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Moreno.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Figures