A secondary zone of uplift  measured after megathrust earthquakes: caused by early downdip afterslip?

Ragon, Théa; Simons, M.

doi:10.1002/essoar.10512523.1

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It must be noted that our model runs a simplified seismic cycle, where coseismic vertical motion has positive sign and no interseismic deformation occurs. However, the assumption of a one‐way motion is increasingly being contradicted by new observations at subduction margins showing us that subsidence can characterize both the coseismic and the interseismic phase (e.g., Clark et al., 2017; Kosari et al., 2022; Ragon & Simons, 2023). Such motion is observed instrumentally, with rates up to −3 mm/yr (e.g., Alatza et al., 2020, http://www.egms.land.copernicus.eu), and geologically, at the Myr‐timescale, where subsidence seems to interrupt periods of uplift, albeit at lower rates (e.g., Menant et al., 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our understanding on the timing of permanent uplift accumulation and its driving mechanism(s) is still limited. Permanent vertical displacement may occur at the scale of the earthquake cycle, either coseismically during megathrust (e.g., Melnick et al., 2009; Meltzner et al., 2015; Sieh et al., 2008) or upper plate (e.g., Berryman et al., 2011; Clark et al., 2017; Gusman et al., 2018; Mouslopoulou et al., 2015, 2016) earthquakes, or during their interseismic period (e.g., Jolivet et al., 2020; Malatesta et al., 2021; Saillard et al., 2017) or during both coseismic and postseismic period (e.g., Ragon & Simons, 2023); or at larger timescales, due to phases of subduction erosion of the upper plate or cycles of sediment underplating, as suggested by numerical models (Angiboust et al., 2022; Menant et al., 2020) and natural observations (Melnick & Echtler, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uplifted Pleistocene Marine Terraces at Active Margins: Modeling Reveals the Effects of Sea Reoccupation and Coseismic Uplift on Uplift Rate Calculation

Crosetto,

de Montserrat,

Oncken

2024

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uplifted Pleistocene marine terrace sequences are used to quantify uplift rates along active margins by knowing terrace age and elevation, and sea level (SL) position at the time of terrace formation. When terraces are undated, ages are assigned by correlating terraces at progressively higher elevations with progressively older highstands. Uplift at convergent margins can be constant over time or occur coseismically during upper plate earthquakes. We explore the formation of terrace sequences under conditions of constant and earthquake‐driven uplift by using a forward numerical model. The modeling reveals that terraces are generally abandoned at SL highstands but they are carved during all stands, depending on the time spent within the sea erosional‐depth‐range. Therefore sea reoccupation of a same platform after formation is a common occurrence that decreases with increasing uplift rates, suggesting that most platforms in nature may be in fact polygenetic. Furthermore, the model run time influences the terrace sequences: terraces formed at the beginning of longer runs constitute an ‘inherited morphology’ affecting subsequent sequences. When coseismic uplift is applied, the formation and preservation of terraces for a given average uplift rate depend stochastically on the coseismic displacement ‐ recurrence interval combination in relation to the SL position at the time of the earthquake. These factors significantly contribute to a higher likelihood of non‐preserved terraces along a terrace sequence, which may affect age correlation and, consequently, the resulting uplift rates. Further research is needed to explore the effect of the full seismic cycle in shaping a terrace sequence.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uplifted Pleistocene Marine Terraces at Active Margins: Modeling Reveals the Effects of Sea Reoccupation and Coseismic Uplift on Uplift Rate Calculation

Crosetto,

de Montserrat,

Oncken

2024

Geochem Geophys Geosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Materials (without data sets) presented in this paper are archived and available on Zenodo (Ragon, 2022). Static GNSS offsets for the 2010 Maule earthquake have been published in Vigny et al (2011) and Lin et al (2013).…”

Section: Data Availability Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Secondary Zone of Uplift Measured After Megathrust Earthquakes: Caused by Early Downdip Afterslip?

Ragon

Simons

2023

Geophysical Research Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple models of subduction zone thrust earthquakes based on a single dip-slip dislocation embedded in an elastic half space produce a large surface uplift in near field, and a zone of small amplitude subsidence that slowly tapers to zero in the far field (Figure 1a, primary slip patch, e.g., Savage, 1983). Vertical displacements measured after most subduction earthquakes follow a similar pattern. However, some far field geodetic measurements of megathrusts earthquakes (M w > 8) detect a secondary zone of coseismic uplift (referred to as SZU in the text) a few hundred kilometers landward of the trench (for a summary, see van Dinther et al., 2019). In the years following the 1960 M w 9.5 Valdivia and 1964 M w 9.2 Alaska earthquakes (e.g., Kanamori, 1970;Plafker & Savage, 1970), uplifts of more than 1 m and 30 cm in amplitude, respectively, were measured in this secondary zone. After the 2010 M w 8.8 Maule and 2011 M w 9.0 Tohoku earthquakes, a few centimeters of secondary uplift were recorded in some data sets in the days to weeks following the mainshock (e.g., Ozawa et al., 2011;Vigny et al., 2011; Figure 1c). In Japan, unlike displacements measured in Chile, the region where the SZU occurred started to subside in the weeks to months following the mainshock (e.g., Fukuda & Johnson, 2021;Y. Hu et al., 2014). Whether the SZU is coseismic or very rapid postseismic is unknown at this time.The origin and consistency of the SZU remains ambiguous. None of the published coseismic slip models of the 2010 Maule event reproduce simultaneously the horizontal deformation, the near-field vertical displacements and the SZU (Figure 1c shows a selection of published slip models). Similarly, none of the published coseismic slip models for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake explain the observed SZU (e.g., Lay, 2017), whose amplitude is less than a twentieth of the near-field vertical displacement. Note that, for these two events, >1-year-postseismic SZU can be modeled with afterslip or viscoelastic processes (e.g.,

show abstract

A secondary zone of uplift measured after megathrust earthquakes: caused by early downdip afterslip?

Cited by 2 publications

References 32 publications

Uplifted Pleistocene Marine Terraces at Active Margins: Modeling Reveals the Effects of Sea Reoccupation and Coseismic Uplift on Uplift Rate Calculation

Uplifted Pleistocene Marine Terraces at Active Margins: Modeling Reveals the Effects of Sea Reoccupation and Coseismic Uplift on Uplift Rate Calculation

A Secondary Zone of Uplift Measured After Megathrust Earthquakes: Caused by Early Downdip Afterslip?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About