what can geodesy tell us about rifting & subduction? matt pritchard cornell summary: geodesy is...
TRANSCRIPT
What can geodesy tell us about rifting & subduction?
Matt PritchardCornell
Summary:
Geodesy is a tool that reveals real-time processes. We need the rest of the community to decipher them.
We need new observations from multiple rifts & subduction zones
Multi-sensor approach:LAND: All subduction zones with cGPSSEA: Advance seafloor geodesySPACE: Include InSAR
What can InSAR tell us about rifting & subduction?
Matt PritchardCornell
Rifting:Comparison of 3 rifting events indicates
varying importance of magma & earthquakes
Subduction zones:1) More detailed earthquake slip maps
2) Overlapping slow & fast slip
2) Can we predict locations of large earthquakes?
3) Role of upper-plate faulting?
Geodetic2005-2009 Dabbahu, Afar
Map from Juliet Biggs
2007 Gelai, Tanzania
Recent rifting events
2009 Harrat LunayyirSaudi Arabia
6 May – 28 Oct 2005; from Tim Wright, U. Leeds
July 17th
July 23rdJuly 21st
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Biggs et al, GJI, 2009
Time
Temporal evolution of Tanzania eventR
iftin
g E
vent
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Data Model
Modeling: Dyke + fault + Magma chamber
Biggs et al, GJI, 2009
Summary of 3 recent rifting events studied with seismology &
geodesy
From: Baer & Hamiel, 2009
Central Andes earthquakes1992-2007
4 earthquakes > Mw 8.0 (3 shallow, 1 event > 600 km deep)
1995 Mw 8.1 Antofagasta, Chile2001 Mw 8.5 Arequipa, Peru2007 Mw 8.1 Pisco, Peru
8 additional earthquakes > Mw 7.0 (5 shallow, 3 events > 200 km deep)
1996 Mw 7.7 Nazca, Peru1998 Mw 7.1 Antofagasta, Chile2001 Mw 7.6 Arequipa, Peru2005 Mw 7.8 Tarapaca, Chile (110 km deep!)2007 Mw 7.7 Tocopilla, Chile
(Pritchard et al., 2002; Salichon et al., 2003; Pritchard et al., 2006; Peyrat et al., 2006; Delouis & Legrand, 2007; Pritchard et al., 2007; Pritchard & Fielding, 2008; Loveless et al., 2010)
Example: 1998 Mw 7.1 earthquake
Cross-sectionMap view
Map fault slip before, during, & after earthquakes
Joint seismic & geodetic estimates of earthquake and after-slip 1995-2007 in northern Chile
Loveless & Pritchard, 2010
Role of along-strike variabilityConflicting(?) SEIZE summary slides
2D profiles are not universal!
Evidence for after-slip within the “normal” earthquake zone2003 Tokachi-Oki (below)1995 Chile (Pritchard & Simons, 2006), etc.
This profile reveals new features recently discovered phenomena
Compare actual & predicted interferograms from different slip models
Slip models from seismic and sparse geodetic data do not match InSAR
Why slip distributions matter
Coulomb stress change on upper plate faults from1995 Mw 8.1 earthquake
7 co-seismic slip models predict different direction of slip:
Normal fault motion encouraged by some models
Reverse motion discouraged or neutral in our joint model
From Loveless & Pritchard (2008)
Model 1: Delouis et al., 1997; Model 2: Klotz et al., 1999; Model 3: Xia et al., 2003; Model 4: Pritchard et al., 2002; Model 5: Ihmle and Ruegg, 1997; Model 6: Pritchard et al., 2006; Model 7: Pritchard et al., 2006
Splay fault motion during 1964 Alaska earthquake
Profile in next slide
•Co-seismic splay fault motion(?) during 1946 Nankaido, Japan earthquake (Kato, 1983)
•No evidence for upper-plate motion in northern Chile (Loveless & Pritchard, 2008) or Cascadia (Finnegan et al., 2008)
•Patton Bay and Hanning Bay faults moved up to 8 m
From: Plafker, 1972
2007 Sumatra earthquake sequence
Mw 8.4 Sept. 12, 200712 hours later Mw. 7.9
Konca et al., 2008
Interferograms from ALOS satelliteImages from: Geological Survey Institute, Japan
Conclusions
Some lessons learnedDifferent amounts of aseismic deformation during rifting eventsAlong-strike variations in subduction zones can be as important as down-dip changesNo single parameter seems to control location of “asperities”
The way forward:Sea (Seafloor Geodesy & OBS): Focused sites
Options for vertical & horizontal continuous or campaign measurements See Chadwell SEIZE talk
Land (GPS & seismology): All subduction zones(?) for real-time tsunami warning
MARGINS could lead international effortWhy MARGINS? Addresses scientific & societal objectives
Space (InSAR): Everywhere subaerialFree data available in the future (MARGINS should support this)Purchase archived data over all MARGINSWhy MARGINS? Global scale beyond capability of individual PI
Geodesy addresses many questions:Spatial & temporal distribution of fault slip (including updip limit)Post-seismic deformation & rheology of fault/rift zonesDetailed picture of seismogenesisRole of magma & other fluids
Gravity anomalies & slip in southern Peru
Nazca
Rid
ge
Frac
ture
Zone
From: Loveless et al., 2010
3) Empirical features (origin unknown)• Shape of the coastline• Existence of peninsulas• Gravity lows associated with large earthquakes -- proxy for lower & upper plate structure (Song & Simons, 2003; Wells et al., 2003)
Could we have large areas of slip (asperities) in South American
earthquakes?1) Lower plate structure
• Temperature (irrespective of age, Newman et al., 2002)• Seamounts (e.g., Small & Scholz, 1997; Bilek et al., 2003) • Fracture zones (e.g., Robinson et al., 2006)• Plate dip (Mitsui & Hirahara, 2006)
2) Upper plate structure• Isostatic anomaly proxy for lithologic changes (Sobiesak, 2004)• Upper crustal faults oblique to coastline (e.g., Collot et al., 2004)
4) Interface properties:• Sediment: Composition, amount or thickness (e.g., Ruff, 1989)• Magnitude or importance of subduction erosion• Normal stresses on plate interface (e.g., Scholz & Campos, 1995)
No: No single property can explain co-seismic “asperities” for all earthquakes
Comparing various physical properties of subduction zones with co-seismic slip location
Gradients in the gravity field (Llenos & McGuire, 2007) are perhaps useful
From: Loveless et al., 2010
Some ideas for MARGINS successor program
Assess along-strike variations by deploying geodetic arrays in all subduction zonesUnderstand the factors that control slow slip Added benefit for real-time tsunami warningWould also achieve Wang’s goal of measuring different stages of the seismic
cycle via observations in different subduction zones
Seafloor geodesy: (From SEIZE summary & Chadwell talk)What types (vertical pressure gauges; horizontal acoustic, etc.?)?Where to deploy? (up-dip limit; densifying in seismic gaps; post-seismic, etc.?)How many instruments could we afford, given other objectives?
Incorporate InSAR into MARGINS to achieve SEIZE & RCL goalsAchieves SEIZE goal of comparing different subduction zonesPurchase archived data complementary to existing available datasetsSupport future acuisitions via Sentinel & DESDynI
Monitor strain, pore-pressure, tremor & seismic activity in the submarine wedge (SEIZE summary)
Can off-shore observations give us predictive capability for megathrust slip properties?
Detailed study of off-shore faults & topography, seismicity, tomography, etc. is useful for comparing with fault slip on the megathrust