2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-017-2864-9
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

New constraints on coseismic slip during southern Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes over the past 4600 years implied by tsunami deposits and marine turbidites

Abstract: Forecasting earthquake and tsunami hazards along the southern Cascadia subduction zone is complicated by uncertainties in the amount of megathrust fault slip during past ruptures. Here, we estimate slip on hypothetical ruptures of the southern part of the megathrust through comparisons of late Holocene Cascadia earthquake histories derived from tsunami deposits on land and marine turbidites offshore. Bradley Lake in southern Oregon lies *600 m landward of the shoreline and contains deposits from 12 tsunamis in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The geological records of prehistoric earthquakes and tsunamis on Simeonof, Chirikof and Sitkinak islands, 400 km, 650 km and 775 km east of the Fox Islands, respectively, do not contain events that clearly overlap in age with the Hawaiian prehistoric deposits (Briggs et al ., ; Witter et al ., ; Nelson et al ., ). Other potential tsunami source areas with prehistoric evidence of tsunami deposits that may overlap an age range of 750 to 500 cal yr bp include subduction zones such as the Kuril–Kamchatka (Nanayama et al ., ; Pinegina et al ., ; Bourgeois et al ., ), Peru–Chile (Atwater et al ., ; Kempf et al ., ) and Cascadia (Priest et al ., ). These non‐Aleutian sources for the prehistoric tsunami deposits observed in Anahola, Kahana, and Pololū cannot be fully discounted without running tsunami models and further dating of deposits to better constrain age models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The geological records of prehistoric earthquakes and tsunamis on Simeonof, Chirikof and Sitkinak islands, 400 km, 650 km and 775 km east of the Fox Islands, respectively, do not contain events that clearly overlap in age with the Hawaiian prehistoric deposits (Briggs et al ., ; Witter et al ., ; Nelson et al ., ). Other potential tsunami source areas with prehistoric evidence of tsunami deposits that may overlap an age range of 750 to 500 cal yr bp include subduction zones such as the Kuril–Kamchatka (Nanayama et al ., ; Pinegina et al ., ; Bourgeois et al ., ), Peru–Chile (Atwater et al ., ; Kempf et al ., ) and Cascadia (Priest et al ., ). These non‐Aleutian sources for the prehistoric tsunami deposits observed in Anahola, Kahana, and Pololū cannot be fully discounted without running tsunami models and further dating of deposits to better constrain age models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that the southerly decrease in the time intervals between turbidite deposition, and thus inferred decreasing megathrust earthquake recurrence intervals in southern Cascadia (Goldfinger et al, ,,; Priest et al, ), resulted from inherently stronger shaking southward; that is, that stronger amplification and prolonged shaking due to local site conditions at more southerly sites made them more susceptible to generation of turbidity currents for the same magnitude earthquake and source‐site distance. Results of this study reveal significant and systematic variations in site response, but in the east‐west direction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Paleoearthquake chronologies have been derived from the turbidite record and from onshore evidence of earthquake‐induced subsidence and tsunami deposits (Atwater et al, ; Priest et al, ). However, while agreement exists between the onshore‐ and offshore‐derived chronologies of full‐margin, M ~9 earthquakes that recur approximately every 500 years on average (Atwater et al, ; Atwater & Griggs, ), Goldfinger et al (, , ) and Priest et al () identify and interpret muddy turbidites as evidence of intervening partial‐margin rupturing, M ≥ ~8.5 earthquakes, with southward increasing temporal frequency and a corresponding decrease in the recurrence interval of great earthquakes (Figure ). Exploration of all possible interpretations of what these turbidite distributions tell us about paleoearthquakes is of utmost importance because their chronologies underlie earthquake and tsunami hazard assessments for Cascadia, affecting building codes, insurance rates, mitigation, and response planning.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, the use of geological data is essential to accurately assess coastal risk. Recent events have triggered the integration of tsunami deposit data in hazard assessments (for example, Cascadia – Priest et al ., ) or new law enforcement policies on Japanese tsunami disaster prevention plans (e.g. Goto et al ., ).…”
Section: Preservation Potential Of Tsunami Depositsmentioning
confidence: 97%