2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.tecto.2006.02.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hydrodynamic response of subduction zones to seismic activity: A case study for the Costa Rica margin

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Slip magnitudes required to reproduce observed flow rates are likely overestimates; in particular, they are similar to the 4.25 m slip suggested by Cutillo et al [2006] for a great earthquake based on the plate convergence rate of 8.5 cm a −1 and a 50‐year recurrence interval. It is highly improbable that the slow slip events occur every 50 years, especially since three of these events are observed in the 6‐month observation period.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 55%
“…Slip magnitudes required to reproduce observed flow rates are likely overestimates; in particular, they are similar to the 4.25 m slip suggested by Cutillo et al [2006] for a great earthquake based on the plate convergence rate of 8.5 cm a −1 and a 50‐year recurrence interval. It is highly improbable that the slow slip events occur every 50 years, especially since three of these events are observed in the 6‐month observation period.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 55%
“…Strain from slip events produces significant excess fluid pressures and initiates postseismic fluid‐flow (Ge & Stover 2000; Masterlark & Wang 2002; Cutillo et al , in press). A cross‐section of computed coseismic changes in hydraulic head for the Little Skull Mountain fault slip shows that changes in hydraulic head varied with depth (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This effect, though not systematic and requiring validation from further measurements, appears to suggest that variations in the stress field play a role in controlling groundwater chemistry. We suggest that this cause and effect relationship probably results from local permeability changes (i.e., opening or closing of microcracks and fractures) triggered by the variations of the stress field that also cause the earthquakes [ Rojstaczer et al , 1995; Miller et al , 1996; Miller and Nur , 2000; Claesson et al , 2004; Cutillo et al , 2006]. The permeability changes would favor the inflow of shallower waters into tapped wells, whereas the deeper water would remain partially separate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fluids circulating in volcanic areas (gas, vapor, or liquid water) result from the mixing of volcanic, hydrothermal, and shallow meteoric components [ Pilipenko , 1989; Giggenbach et al , 1990; Fischer et al , 1997; Lewicki et al , 2000; Brusca et al , 2001; Capasso et al , 2001]. Geochemical anomalies are hence attributable to three possible causes: (1) variations of the deep source (i.e., the volcanic system), whose detection is the main challenge of any monitoring activity; (2) changes in soil permeability due to the dynamics of the stress field (both at local and regional/subregional scales) acting on the volcanic edifice that may influence the mixing ratio between the different end‐members [ Rojstaczer and Wolf , 1992; Rojstaczer et al , 1995; Toutain et al , 1997; Poitrasson et al , 1999; Johnson et al , 2000; Claesson et al , 2004; Cutillo et al , 2006]; and (3) modifications to the hydrological regime that may change the dilution of the deep components with variable amounts of meteoric waters.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%