Upper-plate rigidity determines depth-varying rupture behaviour of megathrust earthquakes

Article metrics

Abstract

Seismological data provide evidence of a depth-dependent rupture behaviour of earthquakes occurring at the megathrust fault of subduction zones, also known as megathrust earthquakes1. Relative to deeper events of similar magnitude, shallow earthquake ruptures have larger slip and longer duration, radiate energy that is depleted in high frequencies and have a larger discrepancy between their surface-wave and moment magnitudes1,2,3. These source properties make them prone to generating devastating tsunamis without clear warning signs. The depth-dependent rupture behaviour is usually attributed to variations in fault mechanics4,5,6,7. Conceptual models, however, have so far failed to identify the fundamental physical causes of the contrasting observations and do not provide a quantitative framework with which to predict and link them. Here we demonstrate that the observed differences do not require changes in fault mechanics. We use compressional-wave velocity models from worldwide subduction zones to show that their common underlying cause is a systematic depth variation of the rigidity at the lower part of the upper plate — the rock body overriding the megathrust fault, which deforms by dynamic stress transfer during co-seismic slip. Combining realistic elastic properties with accurate estimates of earthquake focal depth enables us to predict the amount of co-seismic slip (the fault motion at the instant of the earthquake), provides unambiguous estimations of magnitude and offers the potential for early tsunami warnings.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Tectonic structure of the shallow region of two types of subduction zones where tsunamis are generated.
Fig. 2: Convergent margin structure and P-wave velocity at the lower part of overriding plates.
Fig. 3: Predicted earthquake rupture and energy release characteristics.
Fig. 4: Conceptual model of megathrust seismogenic zone domains.

Data availability

Source data for Figs. 2 and 3 and for Extended Data Figs. 48 are provided with the paper. The digitized values of P-wave seismic velocity above interplate boundary versus depth and seafloor depth along the 48 wide-angle seismic profiles used here are available at the public research data repository figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9729302.v1).

Code availability

The scripts necessary to process the data and reproduce the main results and figures presented in this work are available at the public research data repository figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9729302.v1).

References

  1. 1.

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

  2. 2.

    Lay, T. & Bilek, S. L. in The Seismogenic Zone of Subduction Thrust Faults (eds. Dixon, T. & Moore, C.) 476–511 (Columbia Univ. Press, 2007).

  3. 3.

    Bilek, S. L. & Lay, T. Subduction zone megathrust earthquakes. Geosphere 14, 1468–1500 (2018).

  4. 4.

    Tobin, H. J. & Saffer, D. M. Elevated fluid pressure and extreme mechanical weakness of a plate boundary thrust, Nankai Trough subduction zone. Geology 37, 679–682 (2009).

  5. 5.

    Noda, H. & Lapusta, N. Stable creeping fault segments can become destructive as a result of dynamic weakening. Nature 493, 518–521 (2013).

  6. 6.

    Huang, Y., Meng, L. & Ampuero, J.-P. A dynamic model of the frequency-dependent rupture process of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Earth Planets Space 64, 1061–1066 (2012).

  7. 7.

    Ikari, M. J., Kameda, J., Saffer, D. M. & Kopf, A. J. Strength characteristics of Japan Trench borehole samples in the high-slip region of the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 412, 35–41 (2015).

  8. 8.

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

  9. 9.

    Fujiwara, T. et al. The 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake: displacement reaching the trench axis. Science 334, 1240 (2011).

  10. 10.

    Maksymowicz, A. et al. Coseismic seafloor deformation in the trench region during the M w8.8 Maule megathrust earthquake. Sci. Rep. 7, 45918 (2017).

  11. 11.

    Kanamori, H. Mechanism of tsunami earthquakes. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 6, 346–359 (1972).

  12. 12.

    Kanamori, H. & Kikuchi, M. The 1992 Nicaragua earthquake: a slow tsunami earthquake associated with subducted sediments. Nature 361, 714–716 (1993).

  13. 13.

    Polet, J. & Kanamori, H. Shallow subduction zone earthquakes and their tsunamigenic potential. Geophys. J. Int. 142, 684–702 (2000).

  14. 14.

    Satake, K. & Tanioka, Y. Sources of tsunami and tsunamigenic earthquakes in subduction zones. Pure Appl. Geophys. 154, 467–483 (1999).

  15. 15.

    Geist, E. L. & Bilek, S. L. Effect of depth-dependent shear modulus on tsunami generation along subduction zones. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1315–1318 (2001).

  16. 16.

    Bilek, S. L. & Lay, T. Rigidity variations with depth along interplate megathrust faults in subduction zones. Nature 400, 443–446 (1999).

  17. 17.

    von Huene, R., Klaeschen, D., Cropp, B. & Miller, J. Tectonic structure across the accretionary and erosional parts of the Japan Trench margin. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 22, 349–22,361 (1994).

  18. 18.

    Ranero, C. R. & von Huene, R. Subduction erosion along the Middle America convergent margin. Nature 404, 748–752 (2000).

  19. 19.

    Brocher, T. M. Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds and density in the Earth’s crust. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95, 2081–2092 (2005).

  20. 20.

    Allmann, B. P. & Shearer, P. M. Global variations of stress drop for moderate to large earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B01310 (2009).

  21. 21.

    Bilek, S. L. & Lay, T. Tsunami earthquakes possibly widespread manifestations of frictional conditional stability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 18-1–18-4 (2002).

  22. 22.

    Pelayo, A. M. & Wiens, D. A. Tsunami earthquakes; slow thrust-faulting events in the accretionary wedge. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 15321–15337 (1992).

  23. 23.

    Newman, A. V., Hayes, G., Wei, Y. & Convers, J. The 25 October 2010 Mentawai tsunami earthquake, from real-time discriminants, finite-fault rupture, and tsunami excitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L05302 (2011).

  24. 24.

    Sun, T., Wang, K., Fujiwara, T., Kodaira, S. & He, J. Large fault slip peaking at trench in the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Nat. Commun. 8, 14044 (2017).

  25. 25.

    Hirono, T. et al. Near-trench slip potential of megaquakes evaluated from fault properties and conditions. Sci. Rep. 6, 28184 (2016).

  26. 26.

    Okal, E. A. & Newman, A. V. Tsunami earthquakes: the quest for a regional signal. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 124, 45–70 (2001).

  27. 27.

    Abercrombie, R. E., Antolik, M., Felzer, K. & Ekström, G. The 1994 Java tsunami earthquake: slip over a subducting seamount. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 6595–6607 (2001).

  28. 28.

    Murphy, S. et al. Shallow slip amplification and enhanced tsunami hazard unravelled by dynamic simulations of mega-thrust earthquakes. Sci. Rep. 6, 35007 (2016).

  29. 29.

    Bilek, S. L. Using earthquake source durations along the Sumatra-Andaman subduction system to examine fault-zone variations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, S62–S70 (2007).

  30. 30.

    Bilek, S. L., DeShon, H. R. & Engdahl, E. R. Spatial variations in earthquake source characteristics within the 2011 M w = 9.0 Tohoku, Japan rupture zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L09304 (2012).

  31. 31.

    Wang, D. & Mori, J. Frequency-dependent energy radiation and fault coupling for the 2010 M w8.8 Maule, Chile, and 2011 M w9.0 Tohoku, Japan, earthquakes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L22308 (2011).

  32. 32.

    Koper, K. D., Hutko, A. R., Lay, T. & Sufri, O. Imaging short-period seismic radiation from the 27 February 2010 Chile (M W8.8) earthquake by back-projection of P, PP, and PKIKP waves. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B02308 (2012).

  33. 33.

    Melgar, D. et al. Slip segmentation and slow rupture to the trench during the 2015, M w8.3 Illapel, Chile earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 961–966 (2016).

  34. 34.

    Zelt, C. A. & Smith, R. B. Seismic travel time inversion for 2-D crustal velocity structure. Geophys. J. Int. 108, 16–34 (1992).

  35. 35.

    Van Avendonk, H. J. A., Harding, A. J., Orcutt, J. A. & McClain, J. S. A two-dimensional tomographic study of the Clipperton transform fault. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 17885–17899 (1998).

  36. 36.

    Korenaga, J. et al. Crustal structure of the southeast Greenland margin from joint refraction and reflection seismic tomography. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 21591–21614 (2000).

  37. 37.

    Hobro, J. W. D., Singh, S. C. & Minshull, T. A. Three-dimensional tomographic inversion of combined reflection and refraction seismic traveltime data. Geophys. J. Int. 152, 79–93 (2003).

  38. 38.

    Contreras-Reyes, E., Grevemeyer, I., Flueh, E. R. & Reichert, C. Upper lithospheric structure of the subduction zone offshore of southern Arauco peninsula, Chile, at 38° S. J. Geophys. Res. 113, B07303 (2008).

  39. 39.

    Contreras-Reyes, E. et al. Structure and tectonics of the central Chilean margin (31°–33° S): implications for subduction erosion and shallow crustal seismicity. Geophys. J. Int. 203, 776–791 (2015).

  40. 40.

    Sallarès, V. & Ranero, C. R. Structure and tectonics of the erosional convergent margin off Antofagasta, north Chile (23.30° S). J. Geophys. Res. 110, B06101 (2005).

  41. 41.

    Sallarès, V. et al. Overriding plate structure of the Nicaragua convergent margin: relationship to the seismogenic zone of the 1992 tsunami earthquake. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 14, 3436–3461 (2013).

  42. 42.

    Svetlizky, I. & Fineberg, J. Classical shear cracks drive the onset of dry frictional motion. Nat. Phys. 509, 205–208 (2014).

  43. 43.

    Freund, L. B. Dynamic Fracture Mechanics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998).

  44. 44.

    Ambraseys, N. N. & Douglas, J. Near-field horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motions. Soil. Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 23, 1–18 (2003).

  45. 45.

    Atkinson, G. M. & Boore, D. M. Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 1703–1729 (2003).

  46. 46.

    Wessel, P., Smith, W. H. F., Scharroo, R., Luis, J. & Wobbe, F. Generic Mapping Tools: improved version released. Eos 94, 409–410 (2013).

  47. 47.

    IOC. IHO and BODC, Centenary Edition of the GEBCO Digital Atlas. https://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gridded_bathymetry_data (2003).

  48. 48.

    Martinez-Loriente, S. et al. Influence of incoming plate relief on upper plate structure and on earthquake nucleation: the case of Southern Costa Rica. Tectonics (in the press).

  49. 49.

    Agudelo, W., Ribodetti, A., Collot, J.-Y. & Operto, S. Joint inversion of multichannel seismic reflection and wide-angle seismic data: Improved imaging and refined velocity model of the crustal structure of the north Ecuador–south Colombia convergent margin. J. Geophys. Res. 114, B02306 (2009).

  50. 50.

    Contreras-Reyes, E., Becerra, J., Kopp, H., Reichert, C. & Díaz-Naveas, J. Seismic structure of the north-central Chilean convergent margin: Subduction erosion of a paleomagmatic arc. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1523–1529 (2014).

  51. 51.

    Moscoso, E. et al. Revealing the deep structure and rupture plane of the 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake (M w = 8.8) using wide angle seismic data. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 307, 147–155 (2011).

  52. 52.

    Scherwath, M. et al. Deep lithospheric structures along the southern central Chile margin from wide-angle P-wave modelling. Geophys. J. Int. 179, 579–600 (2009).

  53. 53.

    Contreras-Reyes, E. et al. Deep seismic structure of the Tonga subduction zone: implications for mantle hydration, tectonic erosion, and arc magmatism. J. Geophys. Res. 116, B10103 (2011).

  54. 54.

    Klingelhoefer, F. et al. Limits of the seismogenic zone in the epicentral region of the 26 December 2004 great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake: Results from seismic refraction and wide-angle reflection surveys and thermal modeling. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B01304 (2010).

  55. 55.

    Arai, R. et al. Structure of the tsunamigenic plate boundary and low-frequency earthquakes in the southern Ryukyu Trench. Nat. Commun. 7, 12255 (2016).

  56. 56.

    Kodaira, S., Takahashi, N., Nakanishi, A., Miura, S. & Kaneda, Y. Subducted seamount imaged in the rupture zone of the 1946 Nankaido earthquake. Science 289, 104–106 (2000).

  57. 57.

    Nakamura, Y. et al. Seismic imaging and velocity structure around the JFAST drill site in the Japan Trench: low Vp, high Vp/Vs in the transparent frontal prism. Earth Planets Space 66, 121 (2014).

  58. 58.

    Horning, G. et al. 2-D tomographic model of the Juan de Fuca plate from accretion at axial seamount to subduction at the Cascadia margin from an active source ocean bottom seismometer survey. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 5859–5879 (2016).

  59. 59.

    Krabbenhöft, A., Bialas, J., Kopp, H., Kukowski, N. & Hübscher, C. Crustal structure of the Peruvian continental margin from wide-angle seismic studies. Geophys. J. Int. 159, 749–764 (2004).

  60. 60.

    Hampel, A., Kukowski, N., Bialas, J., Huebscher, C. & Heinbockel, R. Ridge subduction at an erosive margin: the collision zone of the Nazca Ridge in southern Peru. J. Geophys. Res. 109, B02101 (2004).

  61. 61.

    Shulgin, A. et al. Structural architecture of oceanic plateau subduction offshore Eastern Java and the potential implications for geohazards. Geophys. J. Int. 184, 12–28 (2011).

  62. 62.

    Bassett, D. et al. Three dimensional velocity structure of the northern Hikurangi margin, Raukumara, New Zealand: implications for the growth of continental crust by subduction erosion and tectonic underplating. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 11, Q10013 (2010).

  63. 63.

    Miura, S. et al. Seismological structure and implications of collision between the Ontong Java Plateau and Solomon Island Arc from ocean bottom seismometer-airgun data. Tectonophysics 389, 191–220 (2004).

  64. 64.

    Takahashi, N., Suyehiro, K. & Shinohara, M. Implications from the seismic crustal structure of the northern Izu–Bonin arc. Isl. Arc 7, 383–394 (1998).

  65. 65.

    Walther, C. H. E., Flueh, E. R., Ranero, C. R., von Huene, R. & Strauch, W. Crustal structure across the Pacific margin of Nicaragua: evidence for ophiolitic basement and a shallow mantle sliver. Geophys. J. Int. 141, 759–777 (2000).

  66. 66.

    Sallarès, V., Dañobeitia, J. J. & Flueh, E. Lithospheric structure of the Costa Rican Isthmus: effects of subduction zone magmatism on an oceanic plateau. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 621–643 (2001).

  67. 67.

    Bassett, D. et al. Crustal structure of the Kermadec arc from MANGO seismic refraction profiles. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 7514–7546 (2016).

  68. 68.

    Klingelhoefer, F. et al. P-wave velocity structure of the southern Ryukyu margin east of Taiwan: results from the ACTS wide-angle seismic experiment. Tectonophysics 578, 50–62 (2012).

  69. 69.

    Kopp, H., Klaeschen, D., Flueh, E. R., Bialas, J. & Reichert, C. Crustal structure of the Java margin from seismic wide-angle and multichannel reflection data. J. Geophys. Res. 107, ETG 1-1–ETG 1-24 (2002).

  70. 70.

    Planert, L. et al. Lower plate structure and upper plate deformational segmentation at the Sunda–Banda arc transition, Indonesia. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B08107 (2010).

  71. 71.

    Ye, S., Flueh, E. R., Klaeschen, D. & von Huene, R. Crustal structure along the EDGE transect beneath the Kodiak shelf off Alaska derived from OBH seismic refraction data. Geophys. J. Int. 130, 283–302 (1997).

  72. 72.

    Nakanishi, A. et al. Crustal evolution of the southwestern Kuril Arc, Hokkaido Japan, deduced from seismic velocity and geochemical structure. Tectonophysics 472, 105–123 (2009).

  73. 73.

    Nakanishi, A. et al. Crustal structure across the coseismic rupture zone of the 1944 Tonankai earthquake, the central Nankai Trough seismogenic zone. J. Geophys. Res. 107, EPM 2-1–EPM 2-21 (2002).

  74. 74.

    Kodaira, S. et al. Western Nankai Trough seismogenic zone: results from a wide-angle ocean bottom seismic survey. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 5887–5905 (2000).

  75. 75.

    Singh, S. C. et al. Seismic evidence of bending and unbending of subducting oceanic crust and the presence of mantle megathrust in the 2004 Great Sumatra earthquake rupture zone. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 321–322, 166–176 (2012).

  76. 76.

    Kopp, H. et al. Deep structure of the central Lesser Antilles Island Arc: relevance for the formation of continental crust. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 304, 121–134 (2011).

  77. 77.

    Zhu, J. et al. Crustal structure of the central Costa Rica subduction zone: implications for basal erosion from seismic wide-angle data. Geophys. J. Int. 178, 1112–1131 (2009).

  78. 78.

    Begovic, S., Ranero, C. R., Sallarès, V. &  Grevemeyer, I.  2D velocity and interplate geometry model of the North Chile margin from joint refraction and  wide-angle reflection travel time inversion. In Subduction Interface Processes (SIP) Int. Conf. (2017). 

  79. 79.

    Graindorge, D., Calahorrano, A., Charvis, P., Collot, J.-Y. & Bethoux, N. Deep structures of the Ecuador convergent margin and the Carnegie Ridge, possible consequence on great earthquakes recurrence interval. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L04603 (2004).

  80. 80.

    Gailler, A., Charvis, P. & Flueh, E. R. Segmentation of the Nazca and South American plates along the Ecuador subduction zone from wide angle seismic profiles. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 260, 444–464 (2007).

  81. 81.

    Krabbenhoeft, A., von Huene, R., Klaeschen, D. & Miller, J. J. Subduction-related structure in the M w 9.2, 1964 megathrust rupture area offshore Kodiak Island, Alaska. In AGU Fall Meet. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFM.T11D2641K/abstract (2016).

  82. 82.

    Miura, S. et al. Structural characteristics off Miyagi forearc region, the Japan Trench seismogenic zone, deduced from wide-angle reflection and refraction study. Tectonophysics 407, 165–188 (2005).

  83. 83.

    Nishizawa, A. et al. Variations in seismic velocity distribution along the Ryukyu (Nansei-Shoto) Trench subduction zone at the northwestern end of the Philippine Sea plate. Earth Planets Space https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-017-0674-7 (2017).

  84. 84.

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

  85. 85.

    Kanamori, H. The Alaska Earthquake of 1964: radiation of long-period surface waves and source mechanism. J. Geophys. Res. 75, 5029–5040 (1970).

  86. 86.

    Lay, T. et al. The great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004. Science 308, 1127–1133 (2005).

  87. 87.

    Koketsu, K. et al. A unified source model for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 310, 480–487 (2011).

  88. 88.

    Delouis, B., Nocquet, J.-M. & Vallée, M. Slip distribution of the February 27, 2010 M w = 8.8 Maule Earthquake, central Chile, from static and high-rate GPS, InSAR, and broadband teleseismic data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L17305 (2010).

  89. 89.

    Wu, F. T. & Kanamori, H. Source mechanism of February 4, 1965, Rat Island earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 78, 6082–6092 (1973).

  90. 90.

    Ihmlé, P. F., Gómez, J.-M., Heinrich, Ph. & Guibourg, S. The 1996 Peru tsunamigenic earthquake: broadband source process. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2691–2694 (1998).

  91. 91.

    Bell, R., Holden, C., Power, W., Wang, X. & Downes, G. Hikurangi margin tsunami earthquake generated by slow seismic rupture over a subducted seamount. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 397, 1–9 (2014).

  92. 92.

    Newman, A. V. et al. The energetic 2010 M w 7.1 Solomon Island tsunami earthquake. Geophys. J. Int. 186, 775–781 (2011).

  93. 93.

    Ammon, C. J., Kanamori, H., Lay, T. & Velasco, A. A. The 17 July 2006 Java tsunami earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L24308 (2006).

  94. 94.

    Tanioka, T. & Satake, K. Fault parameters of the 1896 Sanriku tsunami earthquake estimated from tsunami numerical modeling. Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1549–1552 (1996).

  95. 95.

    Johnson, J. M. & Satake, K. Estimation of seismic moment and slip distribution of the April 1, 1946, Aleutian tsunami earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 11765–11774 (1997).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was done in the framework of projects ZIP (reference 604713), funded by the E.C. in the call for proposals FP7-PEOPLE-2013-ITN and FRAME (reference CTM2015-71766-R), funded by the Spanish Plan of Research and Innovation. We thank D. Klaeschen and R. von Huene (Geomar) for providing a copy of the P849 seismic data displayed in Fig. 1, T. Lay for his review, and J.-P. Ampuero for his comments on a preliminary version of the work.

Author information

V.S. had the original idea, conceived the physical model, selected and digitized the P-wave velocity profiles, performed the calculations, made the figures except Fig. 1, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. C.R.R. made the geological interpretation of the physical model, contributed to identifying its implications, processed and pre-stack depth-migrated Java 07 and interpreted both seismic images on Fig. 1, and contributed to writing the manuscript.

Correspondence to Valentí Sallarès.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Peer review information Nature thanks Thorne Lay and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Location map of seismic profiles and recent great and tsunami earthquakes.

Colour-coded relief map of seafloor (blue-green) and emerged land (grey). Circles indicate location of the trench-crossing refraction and wide-angle reflection seismic (WAS) profiles used in this study. Yellow-filled circles are in erosional margins and red-filled circles in accretionary margins. The location, type of margin and references for all profiles are listed in Extended Data Table 1. Numbered white stars show locations of 12 events recognized as tsunami earthquakes according to the definition of Kanamori11: (1) Mw 7.6, 1992 Nicaragua; (2) Mw 7.6, 1960 Peru; (3) Mw 7.5, 1995 Peru; (4) Ms 7.2, 1947 Hikurangi; (5) Mw 7.1, 2010 Solomon; (6) Mw 7.6, 1994 Java; (7) Mw 7.8, 2006 Java; (8) Mw 7.8, 2010 Mentawai; (9) Mw 8.0, 1896 Sanriku; (10) Mw 7.5, 1975 Kurile; (11) Mw 7.8, 1963 Kurile; (12) Mw 8.2, 1946 Aleutian. Orange polygons display the rupture areas of the six largest megathrust earthquakes since 1960: Mw 9.5, 1960 Valdivia; Mw 9.2, 1964 Alaska; Mw 9.1, 2004 Andaman Islands; Mw 9.1, 2010 Tohoku-Oki; Mw 8.8, 2010 Maule; Mw 8.7, 1965 Rat Island. Hypocentral location, date, magnitude and references for all these earthquakes are listed in Extended Data Table 2. This figure has been created using the GMT software package46. The topographic and bathymetric relief data have been taken from the GEBCO Digital Atlas data set47. Authors are not aware of any disputed territories shown.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Superposition of multichannel seismic image and P-wave velocity model.

Example of superposition of a VP model (colour, see scale) on a spatially coincident multichannel seismic image (shading) along profile NIC-20, acquired in the convergent margin of Nicaragua. This profile crosses the rupture area of the 1992 Nicaragua tsunami earthquake (Extended Data Fig. 1). Black lines show isovelocity contours with their corresponding velocity values. White circles indicate the approximate location of the interplate boundary, where megathrust earthquakes take place.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Resolution of VP models and wavelength of rupture stress wavefield.

The light red polygon displays the width of the Fresnel zone as a function of depth, assuming VP(z) in Fig. 2a and energy sources with minimum (maximum) peak frequency fs = 8 Hz (12 Hz). The blue-lilac polygon indicates the approximate wavelength of the stress wavefield associated to earthquake rupture propagation (λw), assuming VS(z) in Extended Data Fig. 5c as propagation velocity, and near-field ground motion spectra with minimum (maximum) peak frequency fsw = 1 Hz (4 Hz) (see Methods for details).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Physical properties versus interplate boundary depth.

a, Red (yellow) circles show VP as a function of z. It is obtained by averaging digitized VP values of accretionary and erosional margins (red and yellow circles, respectively, in Fig. 2b). b, White circles show density (ρ) just above the interplate boundary, as a function of z, obtained by applying Brocher’s ρ(VP) relationship19. c, Red circles show shear-wave velocity (VS) just above the interplate boundary, as a function of z, obtained by applying the VS(VP) relationship from Brocher (ref. 19). The shaded polygon covers the range of possible mode III rupture velocities, as a function of z, according to field observations: u(z) = (0.7–0.9)VS(z). The black line is a fourth-order polynomial regression fit of the VP(z), ρ(z) and VS(z) values, respectively. The size of the error bars in all cases is one standard deviation. Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 P-wave velocity and rigidity gradients.

a, Red line shows the depth gradient of VP as a function of interplate boundary depth, \(\partial {V}_{{\rm{P}}}(z)/\partial z\). It corresponds to the derivative of the VP(z) polynomial regression fit (black line in Fig. 2c). b, Blue line shows the depth gradient of μ as a function of interplate boundary depth, \(\partial \mu (z)/\partial z\). It corresponds to the derivative of the μ(z) polynomial regression fit (black line in Fig. 2d). Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Corner frequency and moment rate spectra.

a, Coloured circles show corner frequency as a function of interplate boundary depth (z), for events of Mw = 5.8-8.6. Δσ = 3 MPa is used in the calculations, and VS(z) is taken from Extended Data Fig. 3c. The colour scale indicates Mw. b, Solid lines show calculated moment rate spectra for three events of Mw = 6.4 (bottom), 7.4 (mid) and 8.4 (top). Black, blue and red lines correspond to Vs at z = 1 km, 6 km and 25 km, respectively, for each event. Coloured circles indicate corner frequency according to colour code in Extended Data Fig. 6a. Vertical dashed lines indicate periods of 250 s and 20 s, reference to calculate Mw and Ms, respectively. In all cases, note the high-frequency depletion at shallow depths. Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Source duration of circum-Pacific megathrust earthquakes.

a, White circles show scaled source duration of 525 moderate size (Mw 5.0–7.5) shallow megathrust subduction earthquakes from around the circum-Pacific, as a function of depth. Black circles show the same source parameters for six large tsunami earthquakes. Data are from ref. 21. This article contains all the information on the procedure followed to calculate the source parameters. b, Red circles are the normalized source duration in a averaged within a 2-km-thick sliding window. Blue circles correspond to relative rupture duration in Fig. 3b scaled to fit average normalized rupture duration within the regular domain in a (approximately 3.5 s), and shifted 4.5 km down to compensate for the difference between depth below sea surface and depth below seafloor. Error bars are one standard deviation. Source data

Extended Data Fig. 8 Range of variation of Mw for a given Ms.

White circles show Mw for events occurring at different interplate boundary depth b.s. that have the same spectral amplitude at 20 s (hence equivalent Ms). Source data

Extended Data Table 1 Location of seismic profiles and margin type
Extended Data Table 2 Location and magnitude of circum-Pacific megathrust earthquakes

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sallarès, V., Ranero, C.R. Upper-plate rigidity determines depth-varying rupture behaviour of megathrust earthquakes. Nature 576, 96–101 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1784-0

Download citation

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.