The role of subducting topography on the mode of fault slip—particularly whether it hinders or facilitates large megathrust earthquakes—remains a controversial topic in subduction dynamics1,2,3,4,5. Models have illustrated the potential for subducting topography to severely alter the structure, stress state and mechanics of subduction zones4,6; however, direct geophysical imaging of the complex fracture networks proposed and the hydrology of both the subducting topography and the associated upper plate damage zones remains elusive. Here we use passive and controlled-source seafloor electromagnetic data collected at the northern Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand, to constrain electrical resistivity in a region of active seamount subduction. We show that a seamount on the incoming plate contains a thin, low-porosity basaltic cap that traps a conductive matrix of porous volcaniclastics and altered material over a resistive core, which allows 3.2 to 4.7 times more water to subduct, compared with normal, unfaulted oceanic lithosphere. In the forearc, we image a sediment-starved plate interface above a subducting seamount with similar electrical structure to the incoming plate seamount. A sharp resistive peak within the subducting seamount lies directly beneath a prominent upper plate conductive anomaly. The coincidence of this upper plate anomaly with the location of burst-type repeating earthquakes and seismicity associated with a recent slow slip event7 directly links subducting topography to the creation of fluid-rich damage zones in the forearc that alter the effective normal stress at the plate interface by modulating the fluid overpressure. In addition to severely modifying the structure and physical conditions of the upper plate, subducting seamounts represent an underappreciated mechanism for transporting a considerable flux of water to the forearc and deeper mantle.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All electromagnetic data that were inverted and analysed in this study are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4721384 and as Source data provided with this paper. The seismic reflection data overlain on the resistivity models are available at https://doi.org/10.21420/62C1-GS40. Source data are provided with this paper.
A version of the MARE2DEM code used to invert the data is available at http://mare2dem.bitbucket.io.
Cloos, M. Thrust-type subduction-zone earthquakes and seamount asperities: a physical model for seismic rupture. Geology 20, 601–604 (1992).
Scholz, C. H. & Small, C. The effect of seamount subduction on seismic coupling. Geology 25, 487–490 (1997).
Singh, S. C. et al. Aseismic zone and earthquake segmentation associated with a deep subducted seamount in Sumatra. Nat. Geosci. 4, 308–311 (2011).
Wang, K. & Bilek, S. L. Do subducting seamounts generate or stop large earthquakes? Geology 39, 819–822 (2011).
Bassett, D. & Watts, A. B. Gravity anomalies, crustal structure, and seismicity at subduction zones: 1. Seafloor roughness and subducting relief. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 1508–1540 (2015).
Dominguez, S., Lallemand, S. E., Malavieille, J. & Von Huene, R. Upper plate deformation associated with seamount subduction. Tectonophysics 293, 207–224 (1998).
Shaddox, H. R. & Schwartz, S. Y. Subducted seamount diverts shallow slow slip to the forearc of the northern Hikurangi subduction zone, New Zealand. Geology 47, 415–418 (2019).
Barker, D. H. N. et al. Geophysical constraints on the relationship between seamount subduction, slow slip, and tremor at the North Hikurangi subduction zone, New Zealand. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 804–813 (2018).
Davidson, S. R. et al. Conjugate strike-slip faulting across a subduction front driven by incipient seamount subduction. Geology 48, 493–498 (2020).
Wallace, L. M. et al. Characterizing the seismogenic zone of a major plate boundary subduction thrust: Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10, Q10006 (2009).
Barnes, P. M. et al. Slow slip source characterized by lithological and geometric heterogeneity. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay3314 (2020).
Evans, R. L. Constraints on the large‐scale porosity and permeability structure of young oceanic crust from velocity and resistivity data. Geophys. J. Int. 119, 869–879 (1994).
Naif, S., Key, K., Constable, S. & Evans, R. L. Water-rich bending faults at the Middle America Trench. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 2582–2597 (2015).
Naif, S., Key, K., Constable, S. & Evans, R. L. Porosity and fluid budget of a water-rich megathrust revealed with electromagnetic data at the Middle America Trench. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 17, 4495–4516 (2016).
Johansen, S. E. et al. Deep electrical imaging of the ultraslow-spreading Mohns Ridge. Nature 567, 379–383 (2019).
Chesley, C., Key, K., Constable, S., Behrens, J. & Macgregor, L. Crustal cracks and frozen flow in oceanic lithosphere inferred from electrical anisotropy. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20, 5979–5999 (2019).
Barker, D. H. N., Sutherland, R., Henrys, S. & Bannister, S. Geometry of the Hikurangi subduction thrust and upper plate, North Island, New Zealand. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10, Q02007 (2009).
Wallace, L. M. et al. Hikurangi subduction margin coring, logging, and observatories. In Proc. International Ocean Discovery Program Vol. 372B/375 (eds Wallace L. M. et al.) (International Ocean Discovery Program, 2019); https://doi.org/10.14379/iodp.proc.372B375.2019
Wallace, L. M. et al. Slow slip near the trench at the Hikurangi subduction zone, New Zealand. Science 352, 701–704 (2016).
Taylor, B. The single largest oceanic plateau: Ontong Java–Manihiki–Hikurangi. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 241, 372–380 (2006).
Key, K. MARE2DEM: a 2-D inversion code for controlled-source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric data. Geophys. J. Int. 207, 571–588 (2016).
Davy, B., Hoernle, K. & Werner, R. Hikurangi Plateau: Crustal structure, rifted formation, and Gondwana subduction history. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9, Q07004 (2008).
Wallace, L. M. et al. Site U1526. In Proc. International Ocean Discovery Program Vol. 372B/375 (eds Wallace, L. M. et al.) (International Ocean Discovery Program, 2019); https://doi.org/10.14379/iodp.proc.372B375.106.2019
Pezard, P. A. Electrical properties of mid-ocean ridge basalt and implications for the structure of the upper oceanic crust in hole 504B. J. Geophys. Res. 95, 9237–9264 (1990).
Antriasian, A. et al. Thermal regime of the Northern Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. Geophys. J. Int. 216, 1177–1190 (2018).
Fisher, A. T. & Wheat, C. G. Seamounts as conduits for massive fluid, heat, and solute fluxes on ridge flanks. Oceanography 23, 74–87 (2010).
Archie, G. E. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans. AIME 146, 54–62 (1942).
Becker, K. Large-scale electrical resistivity and bulk porosity of the upper oceanic crust at hole 395A. In Proc. Ocean Drilling Program Scientific Results Vol. 106/109 (eds Detrick, R. et al.) 205–212 (Ocean Drilling Program, 1990); https://doi.org/10.2973/odp.proc.sr.106109.145.1990
Barnes, P. M. et al. Site U1520. in Proc. International Ocean Discovery Program Vol. 372B/375 (eds Wallace, L. M. et al.) (International Ocean Discovery Program, 2019); https://doi.org/10.14379/iodp.proc.372B375.105.2019
Barnes, P. M. et al. Site U1519. in Proc. International Ocean Discovery Program Vol. 372B/375 (eds Wallace, L. M. et al.) (International Ocean Discovery Program, 2019); https://doi.org/10.14379/iodp.proc.372B375.104.2019
Bell, R. et al. Seismic reflection character of the Hikurangi subduction interface, New Zealand, in the region of repeated Gisborne slow slip events. Geophys. J. Int. 180, 34–48 (2010).
Watson, S. J. et al. Focused fluid seepage related to variations in accretionary wedge structure, Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. Geology 48, 56–61 (2020).
Arai, R. et al. Three-dimensional P-wave velocity structure of the northern Hikurangi Margin from the NZ3D experiment: evidence for fault-bound anisotropy. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 125, e2020JB020433 (2020).
Sun, T., Saffer, D. & Ellis, S. Mechanical and hydrological effects of seamount subduction on megathrust stress and slip. Nat. Geosci. 13, 249–255 (2020).
Zal, H. J. et al. Temporal and spatial variations in seismic anisotropy and VP/VS ratios in a region of slow slip. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 532, 115970 (2020).
Warren-Smith, E. et al. Episodic stress and fluid pressure cycling in subducting oceanic crust during slow slip. Nat. Geosci. 12, 475–481 (2019).
Bonnet, G., Agard, P., Angiboust, S., Fournier, M. & Omrani, J. No large earthquakes in fully exposed subducted seamount. Geology 47, 407–410 (2019).
Nakajima, J. & Uchida, N. Repeated drainage from megathrusts during episodic slow slip. Nat. Geosci. 11, 351–356 (2018).
Sibson, R. H. Stress switching in subduction forearcs: implications for overpressure containment and strength cycling on megathrusts. Tectonophysics 600, 142–152 (2013).
Park, J. O. et al. A low-velocity zone with weak reflectivity along the Nankai subduction zone. Geology 38, 283–286 (2010).
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).
Li, J. et al. Connections between subducted sediment, pore-fluid pressure, and earthquake behavior along the Alaska megathrust. Geology 46, 299–302 (2018).
van Rijsingen, E., Funiciello, F., Corbi, F. & Lallemand, S. Rough subducting seafloor reduces interseismic coupling and mega-earthquake occurrence: insights from analogue models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 3124–3132 (2019).
Wallace, L. M. Slow slip events in New Zealand. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 48, 175–203 (2020).
Conrad, C. P., Selway, K., Hirschmann, M. M., Ballmer, M. D. & Wessel, P. Constraints on volumes and patterns of asthenospheric melt from the space-time distribution of seamounts. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 7203–7210 (2017).
Constable, S. Review paper: Instrumentation for marine magnetotelluric and controlled source electromagnetic sounding. Geophys. Prospect. 61, 505–532 (2013).
Myer, D., Constable, S. & Key, K. Broad-band waveforms and robust processing for marine CSEM surveys. Geophys. J. Int. 184, 689–698 (2011).
Key, K. & Constable, S. Inverted long-baseline acoustic navigation of deep-towed CSEM transmitters and receivers. Mar. Geophys. Res. 42, 6 (2021).
Myer, D., Constable, S., Key, K., Glinsky, M. E. & Liu, G. Marine CSEM of the Scarborough gas field, Part 1: Experimental design and data uncertainty. Geophysics 77, E281–E299 (2012).
Egbert, G. D. Robust multiple-station magnetotelluric data processing. Geophys. J. Int. 130, 475–496 (1997).
Wheelock, B., Constable, S. & Key, K. The advantages of logarithmically scaled data for electromagnetic inversion. Geophys. J. Int. 201, 1765–1780 (2015).
Constable, S., Key, K. & Lewis, L. Mapping offshore sedimentary structure using electromagnetic methods and terrain effects in marine magnetotelluric data. Geophys. J. Int. 176, 431–442 (2009).
Saffer, D. M. et al. Site U1518. in Proc. International Ocean Discovery Program Vol. 372B/375 (eds Wallace, L. M. et al.) (International Ocean Discovery Program, 2019); https://doi.org/10.14379/iodp.proc.372B375.103.2019
Schwalenberg, K., Rippe, D., Koch, S. & Scholl, C. Marine-controlled source electromagnetic study of methane seeps and gas hydrates at Opouawe Bank, Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 122, 3334–3350 (2017).
van Keken, P. E., Hacker, B. R., Syracuse, E. M. & Abers, G. A. Subduction factory: 4. Depth-dependent flux of H2O from subducting slabs worldwide. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 116, B01401 (2011).
Park, J. & Rye, D. M. Broader impacts of the metasomatic underplating hypothesis. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20, 4810–4829 (2019).
We acknowledge that this work was partially carried out on the lands of the Te Āti Awa. We thank Scripps Institution of Oceanography for providing the instrumentation necessary to collect the electromagnetic data used in this study, the New Zealand government for permission to work in their exclusive economic zone, and the captains (W. Hill and D. Murline) and crew of the R/V Revelle expeditions RR1817 and RR1903. We thank S. Constable and the Scripps Marine EM Lab (C. Armerding, J. Lemire, J. Perez and J. Souders) and the HT-RESIST science party (A. Adams, J. Alvarez-Aramberri, C. Armerding, E. Attias, E.A. Bertrand, D. Blatter, G. Boren, G. Franz, C. Gustafson, W. Heise, Y. Li, B. Oryan, N. Palmer, J. Perez, J. Sherman, K. Woods and A. Yates). We thank the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA; https://niwa.co.nz/) for providing high-resolution bathymetry data. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant OCE-1737328. C.C. acknowledges funding support by the Department of Defense (DoD) through the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship (NDSEG) Program. D.B. was supported by a Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund grant (MFP-GNS1902); by the MBIE Endeavour Grant: Diagnosing peril posed by the Hikurangi subduction zone; and by public research funding from the Government of New Zealand Strategic Science Investment Fund to GNS Science. We acknowledge computing resources from Columbia University’s Shared Research Computing Facility project, which is supported by NIH Research Facility Improvement Grant 1G20RR030893-01, and associated funds from the New York State Empire State Development, Division of Science Technology and Innovation (NYSTAR) Contract C090171, both awarded 15 April 2010.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature thanks Martyn Unsworth and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
Extended Data Fig. 1 Preferred inversion model (vertical resistivity component ρv) with high-resolution bathymetry.
Seafloor receivers used in the inversion are grey cubes with station numbers. See Extended Data Fig. 6 for the horizontal resistivity and anisotropy. a, b, Northeast-facing (a) and southwest-facing (b) views of the bathymetry. High-resolution bathymetry were provided courtesy of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (https://niwa.co.nz/).
Extended Data Fig. 2 Porosity conversion of the preferred resistivity model using a range of Archie’s law cementation exponents.
a, m = 1.6. b, m = 2. c, m = 2.4 (same as Fig. 2b). d, m = 2.8.
a, Model used to generate synthetic data. b, Model recovered from inversion of the synthetic data.
Amplitude (top) and phase (bottom) data (circles) and preferred model response (line) at 0.75 Hz for station 7 (green) and station 26 (blue) are shown. The rapid attenuation seen at station 7 and the much slower decay at station 26 are due to their respective locations on the conductive forearc and resistive Tūranganui Knoll.
Red and blue lines show the diagonal, |Zxx|, and off-diagonal, |Zxy|, components of the impedance tensor, respectively, as a function of geographic rotation, with north pointing up. The black arrow in the white circle is the strike direction for this survey. Grey shading masks the periods and stations where data are omitted from our 2D analysis due to 3D effects in the polar diagram shapes.
a, Horizontal resistivity (ρh). b, Anisotropy ratio (ρv/ρh). The model has minimal anisotropy.
a, b, Normalized r.m.s for CSEM data (a) and MT data (b). The blue dots and red dots in a are normalized residuals for all inline electric field amplitude and phase, respectively, at a given transmitter position. The bars in b are r.m.s. misfit for impedance tensor components of each MT receiver: blue, transverse electric (TE) mode apparent resistivity; green, TE phase; orange, transverse magnetic (TM) mode apparent resistivity; purple, TM phase.
CSEM data (top), model fits (middle) and residuals (bottom) for the highest power harmonics as a function of distance from the Hikurangi Margin and transmitter–receiver offset. The dashed box indicates data collected at 1/6 Hz. All other data were collected at 1/4 Hz. a, Fundamental frequency. b, Third harmonic. c, Seventh harmonic.
Fit of the preferred resistivity model (lines) to all MT data (circles) used in this study. TE mode is blue and TM mode is red.
a, b, Change in model fit between the preferred model and forward models testing the sensitivity to the forearc conductors for the CSEM data (a) and the MT data (b). To generate the top row of each panel, the resistivity of each conductor was individually increased to 5 Ωm. The resistivity was increased to 10 Ωm in the bottom panel. The blue dots and red dots in a are the change in r.m.s. for all inline electric field amplitudes and phases, respectively, at a given transmitter position. In b, the bars are the change in r.m.s. misfit for impedance tensor components of each MT receiver: blue, TE apparent resistivity; green, TE phase; orange, TM apparent resistivity; purple, TM phase.
Change in model fit between the preferred model and forward models testing the sensitivity to the subducting seamount for the MT data (CSEM data are insensitive to R1f). To generate the top, middle and bottom panels, the resistivity of the subducting seamount was decreased to 20 Ωm, 10 Ωm and 7 Ωm, respectively. The bars are the change in r.m.s. misfit for impedance tensor components of each MT receiver: blue, TE apparent resistivity; green, TE phase; orange, TM apparent resistivity; purple, TM phase.
About this article
Cite this article
Chesley, C., Naif, S., Key, K. et al. Fluid-rich subducting topography generates anomalous forearc porosity. Nature 595, 255–260 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03619-8