Stress transfer and poroelasticity associated to major earthquakes in Africa

The 2020 Monte Cristo (Nevada) Earthquake Sequence: Stress Transfer in the Context of Conjugate Strike‐Slip Faults

“…This activity mostly shows a conjugate right‐lateral and left‐lateral rupture mechanisms within the Central Walker Lane (Figure 1). This sequence of seismic activity suggests stress transfer among of conjugate faults as observed in other cases such as the November 1987 Elmore Ranch‐Superstitions Hills, the 1992 Landers‐Big Bear, the 1994–2016 Rif‐Alboran Sea, the 2019 Mindanao and the July 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes sequences (Bosl & Nur, 2002; Hudnut et al., 1989; Kariche et al., 2018, 2019; Li et al., 2020). Fault slip kinematic studies for the Walker Lane and Mina Deflection show a slip transfer between sinistral slip along the northwest part of the Mina Deflection and dextral slip along the Owens Valley fault in the Southern Walker Lane domain (DeLano et al., 2019; Nagorsen‐Rinke et al., 2013; Stewart, 1980; Wesnousky, 2005).…”

“…Despite the similarities in fault interaction with others conjugate triggering mechanisms (Hudnut et al., 1989; Kariche et al., 2018), the static stress change modeling using an isotropic poroelastic model shows no correlation between the fluid redistribution caused by large right‐lateral ruptures and the occurrence of moderate to strong earthquakes on conjugated en echelon left‐lateral faults. Compared to several case studies of conjugate triggering mechanisms (Fialko, 2004; Kariche et al., 2018, 2019; Shi & Wei, 2020), the ‘no apparent’ fluid redistribution effect may also explain the large time delay between the Cedar Mountain and Monte Cristo earthquakes (∼88 years). Among the main historical and recent earthquakes, the static stress change modeling at half of the seismogenic depth shows that the 1932 Cedar Mountain earthquake (Mw 7.1) significantly influenced the stress field in Central Walker Lane.…”