Lithologic control of the depth of earthquakes in Southern California

Science

Volumn 273, Issue 5275, 1996, Pages 639-642

  Magistrale, Harold ^a   Zhou, Hua Wei ^b  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MINERAL;

EARTHQUAKE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; ROCK; UNITED STATES;

DEPTH DISTRIBUTION; EARTHQUAKE; LITHOLOGY; SCHIST; SPATIAL VARIATION;

USA, CALIFORNIA;

EID: 0029764676     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.273.5275.639     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. G. Haxel and J. Dillon, in Mesozoic Paleogeography of the Western United States, D. Howell and K. McDougall, Eds. (Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Los Angeles, CA, 1978), pp. 453-470.
2. R. K. Dokka et al., in Geological Excursions in Southern California and Mexico, M. J. Walawender and B. B. Hanan, Eds. (Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1991), pp. 1-43.
3. P. L. Ehlig, in The Geotectonic Development of California, Rubey Volume I, W. G. Ernst, Ed. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981), chap. 10.
4. J. T. Dillon, G. B. Haxel, R. M. Tosdal, J. Geophys. Res. 95, 19953 (1990).
5. J. C. Crowell, in The Geotectonic Development of California, Rubey Volume I, W. G. Ernst, Ed. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981), chap. 18.
6. W. Hamilton, in Metamorphism and Crustal Evolution of the Western United States, Rubey Volume VII, W. G. Ernst, Ed. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988), chap. 1.
7. B. C. Burchfiel and G. A. Davis, in The Geotectonic Development of California, Rubey Volume I, W. G. Ernst, Ed. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981), chap. 9.
8. M. J. Cheadle et al., Tectonics 5, 293 (1986); M. E. Spongberg and T. L. Henyey, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 19, 454 (abstr.) (1987).
9. M. J. Cheadle et al., Tectonics 5, 293 (1986); M. E. Spongberg and T. L. Henyey, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 19, 454 (abstr.) (1987).
10. D. May et al., Eos 63, 1033 (abstr.) (1982).
11. R. S. Morris, thesis, San Diego State University (1990); _, D. A. Okaya, E. G. Frost, P. E. Malin, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 18, 160 (abstr.) (1986).
12. R. S. Morris, thesis, San Diego State University (1990); _, D. A. Okaya, E. G. Frost, P. E. Malin, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 18, 160 (abstr.) (1986).
13. P. E. Malin et al., J. Geophys. Res. 100, 2069 (1995).
14. 1 per second of two-way travel time, appropriate for schists at a depth of 10 km (11).
15. S. Sorensen, in Metamorphism and Crustal Evolution of the Western United States, Rubey Volume VII, W. G. Ernst, Ed. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988), chap. 36; _, G. E. Bebout, M. D. Barton, in Geological Excursions in Southern California and Mexico, M. J. Walawender and B. B. Hanan, Eds. (Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1991), pp. 272-296; R. S. Yeats, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 57, 117 (1973).
16. S. Sorensen, in Metamorphism and Crustal Evolution of the Western United States, Rubey Volume VII, W. G. Ernst, Ed. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988), chap. 36; _, G. E. Bebout, M. D. Barton, in Geological Excursions in Southern California and Mexico, M. J. Walawender and B. B. Hanan, Eds. (Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1991), pp. 272-296; R. S. Yeats, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 57, 117 (1973).
17. S. Sorensen, in Metamorphism and Crustal Evolution of the Western United States, Rubey Volume VII, W. G. Ernst, Ed. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988), chap. 36; _, G. E. Bebout, M. D. Barton, in Geological Excursions in Southern California and Mexico, M. J. Walawender and B. B. Hanan, Eds. (Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1991), pp. 272-296; R. S. Yeats, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 57, 117 (1973).
18. D. G. Howell and J. Vedder, in The Geotectonic Development of California, Rubey Volume I, W. G. Ernst, Ed. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981), chap. 16;
19. J. G. Vedder, in Geology and Resource Potential of the Continental Margin of Western North America and Adjacent Ocean Basins - Beaufort Sea to Baja California, D. W. Scholl, A. Grantz, J. G. Vedder, Eds. (Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Minerals, Houston, TX, 1987), pp. 403-448.
20. J. K. Crouch and J. Suppe, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 105, 1415 (1993).
21. H. Zhou, J. Geophys. Res. 99, 15,439 (1994); Eos 75, 483 (abstr.) (1994). This technique properly accounts for three-dimensional crustal and uppermantle seismic velocity heterogeneities while determining hypocenters. The SCSN earthquake catalog hypocenters are found with a one-dimensional velocity model. However, the general features of the hypocenter depth patterns we discuss here are apparent in the best quality hypocenters in the SCSN earthquake catalog.
22. H. Zhou, J. Geophys. Res. 99, 15,439 (1994); Eos 75, 483 (abstr.) (1994). This technique properly accounts for three-dimensional crustal and uppermantle seismic velocity heterogeneities while determining hypocenters. The SCSN earthquake catalog hypocenters are found with a one-dimensional velocity model. However, the general features of the hypocenter depth patterns we discuss here are apparent in the best quality hypocenters in the SCSN earthquake catalog.
23. The earthquakes used here were selected to have small location errors as determined by the SCSN catalog and to have been recorded on at least 10 stations used for relocations. These selection parameters exclude earthquakes that are poorly constrained as a result of the low station density near the periphery of the SCSN. In the central part of the SCSN that we examine here, the hypocentral errors are <1 km (16).
24. H. Magistrale and C. Sanders, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 3031 (1996).
25. S. M. Green, thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (1983); E. J. Corbett, thesis, California Institute of Technology (1984); T, H. Webb and H. Kanamori, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, 737 (1985); C. Nicholson, L Seeber, P. Williams, L. R. Sykes, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 4891 (1986); L M. Jones, E. Hauksson, H. Qian, Seismol. Res. (abstr.) 64, 22 (1993).
26. S. M. Green, thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (1983); E. J. Corbett, thesis, California Institute of Technology (1984); T, H. Webb and H. Kanamori, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, 737 (1985); C. Nicholson, L Seeber, P. Williams, L. R. Sykes, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 4891 (1986); L M. Jones, E. Hauksson, H. Qian, Seismol. Res. (abstr.) 64, 22 (1993).
27. S. M. Green, thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (1983); E. J. Corbett, thesis, California Institute of Technology (1984); T, H. Webb and H. Kanamori, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, 737 (1985); C. Nicholson, L Seeber, P. Williams, L. R. Sykes, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 4891 (1986); L M. Jones, E. Hauksson, H. Qian, Seismol. Res. (abstr.) 64, 22 (1993).
28. S. M. Green, thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (1983); E. J. Corbett, thesis, California Institute of Technology (1984); T, H. Webb and H. Kanamori, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, 737 (1985); C. Nicholson, L Seeber, P. Williams, L. R. Sykes, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 4891 (1986); L M. Jones, E. Hauksson, H. Qian, Seismol. Res. (abstr.) 64, 22 (1993).
29. S. M. Green, thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (1983); E. J. Corbett, thesis, California Institute of Technology (1984); T, H. Webb and H. Kanamori, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, 737 (1985); C. Nicholson, L Seeber, P. Williams, L. R. Sykes, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 4891 (1986); L M. Jones, E. Hauksson, H. Qian, Seismol. Res. (abstr.) 64, 22 (1993).
30. R. H. Sibson, J. Geophys. Res. 89, 5791 (1984): R. Meissner and J Strehlau, Tectonics 1, 73 (1982); S. T. Tse and J. R. Rice, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 9452 (1986); C. H. Scholz, The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1990).
31. R. H. Sibson, J. Geophys. Res. 89, 5791 (1984): R. Meissner and J Strehlau, Tectonics 1, 73 (1982); S. T. Tse and J. R. Rice, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 9452 (1986); C. H. Scholz, The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1990).
32. R. H. Sibson, J. Geophys. Res. 89, 5791 (1984): R. Meissner and J Strehlau, Tectonics 1, 73 (1982); S. T. Tse and J. R. Rice, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 9452 (1986); C. H. Scholz, The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1990).
33. R. H. Sibson, J. Geophys. Res. 89, 5791 (1984): R. Meissner and J Strehlau, Tectonics 1, 73 (1982); S. T. Tse and J. R. Rice, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 9452 (1986); C. H. Scholz, The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1990).
34. R. H. Sibson, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72, 151 (1982).
35. J. C. Matti, D. M. Morton, B. F. Cox, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 85-355 (1985).
36. E. S. Larsen, Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 29 (1948).
37. D. A. Pickett and J B. Saleeby. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 609 (1993).
38. R. V. Sharp, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 78, 705 (1967).
39. J. Dolan et al., Science 267, 199 (1995).
40. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85, 379 (1995).
41. In addition to the events shown in Fig. 3, we also checked the magnitude (M) 6.0 1987 Whittier Narrows, M 5.0 1988 Pasadena, M 5.0 1989 Malibu, M 4.6 1988 and M 5.2 1990 Upland, M 5.6 1991 Sierra Madre, and M 6.1 1992 Joshua Tree earthquakes. Some of these earthquakes occurred in areas underlain by schists and some in areas underlain by other kinds of rock; in every case the main shock-after-shock sequence had the same maximum depth as the local background seismicity. In some cases (for example, the Landers area in Fig. 3) the background seismicity was sparse but adequately defined the maximum depth.
42. C. M. Schiffries and T. L. Henyey, Geotimes 39, 4 (1994); D. D. Jackson, Seismol. Res. Lett. 67, 3 (1996).
43. C. M. Schiffries and T. L. Henyey, Geotimes 39, 4 (1994); D. D. Jackson, Seismol. Res. Lett. 67, 3 (1996).
44. C. E. Jacobson, J. Geophys. Res. 95, 509 (1990).
45. To map the subsurface distribution of the Pelona, Orocopia, and Rand schists, we accept the conclusion of (1) that continuous schist is present under the western Mojave. Models of the emplacement of the schist protoliths also imply regional continuity of the schists (1-7), and seismic reflection surveys image the schists as continuous features extending beyond the survey areas (8-11). Constraints in the area of cross section A-A′ (Fig. 2) are from (1,7, 22); cross section B-B′, from (3, 32); cross section C-C′, from (3, 9, 32); cross section D-D′, from (11, 24); and cross section E-E′, from L. T. Silver and J. A. Nourse, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 18, 185 (abstr.) (1986); J. B. Saleeby, L. T. Silver, D. J. Wood, P. E. Malin, ibid. 25, 141 (abstr.) (1993): and L. T. Silver, ibid. p. 147 (abstr.). Also, the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains are structurally continuous with the Tehachapi Mountains [J. B. Saleeby, D. B. Sams, R. K. Kistler, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 10, 443 (1987)] where schist is present (11, 24). The subsurface distribution of the Catalina schist is from (13-15); T. L. Wright, in Active Margin Basins, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem. 52, K, T. Biddle, Ed. (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 1991), pp. 35-134; and J. E. Schoellhamer and A. O. Woodford, U.S. Geol. Surv. Oil Gas Invest. Map OM-117 (1951). There is minor disagreement about the eastern limit of the Catalina Schist under part of the Los Angeles basin (14, 15); here we follow (14).
46. To map the subsurface distribution of the Pelona, Orocopia, and Rand schists, we accept the conclusion of (1) that continuous schist is present under the western Mojave. Models of the emplacement of the schist protoliths also imply regional continuity of the schists (1-7), and seismic reflection surveys image the schists as continuous features extending beyond the survey areas (8-11). Constraints in the area of cross section A-A′ (Fig. 2) are from (1,7, 22); cross section B-B′, from (3, 32); cross section C-C′, from (3, 9, 32); cross section D-D′, from (11, 24); and cross section E-E′, from L. T. Silver and J. A. Nourse, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 18, 185 (abstr.) (1986); J. B. Saleeby, L. T. Silver, D. J. Wood, P. E. Malin, ibid. 25, 141 (abstr.) (1993): and L. T. Silver, ibid. p. 147 (abstr.). Also, the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains are structurally continuous with the Tehachapi Mountains [J. B. Saleeby, D. B. Sams, R. K. Kistler, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 10, 443 (1987)] where schist is present (11, 24). The subsurface distribution of the Catalina schist is from (13-15); T. L. Wright, in Active Margin Basins, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem. 52, K, T. Biddle, Ed. (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 1991), pp. 35-134; and J. E. Schoellhamer and A. O. Woodford, U.S. Geol. Surv. Oil Gas Invest. Map OM-117 (1951). There is minor disagreement about the eastern limit of the Catalina Schist under part of the Los Angeles basin (14, 15); here we follow (14).
47. To map the subsurface distribution of the Pelona, Orocopia, and Rand schists, we accept the conclusion of (1) that continuous schist is present under the western Mojave. Models of the emplacement of the schist protoliths also imply regional continuity of the schists (1-7), and seismic reflection surveys image the schists as continuous features extending beyond the survey areas (8-11). Constraints in the area of cross section A-A′ (Fig. 2) are from (1,7, 22); cross section B-B′, from (3, 32); cross section C-C′, from (3, 9, 32); cross section D-D′, from (11, 24); and cross section E-E′, from L. T. Silver and J. A. Nourse, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 18, 185 (abstr.) (1986); J. B. Saleeby, L. T. Silver, D. J. Wood, P. E. Malin, ibid. 25, 141 (abstr.) (1993): and L. T. Silver, ibid. p. 147 (abstr.). Also, the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains are structurally continuous with the Tehachapi Mountains [J. B. Saleeby, D. B. Sams, R. K. Kistler, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 10, 443 (1987)] where schist is present (11, 24). The subsurface distribution of the Catalina schist is from (13-15); T. L. Wright, in Active Margin Basins, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem. 52, K, T. Biddle, Ed. (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 1991), pp. 35-134; and J. E. Schoellhamer and A. O. Woodford, U.S. Geol. Surv. Oil Gas Invest. Map OM-117 (1951). There is minor disagreement about the eastern limit of the Catalina Schist under part of the Los Angeles basin (14, 15); here we follow (14).
48. To map the subsurface distribution of the Pelona, Orocopia, and Rand schists, we accept the conclusion of (1) that continuous schist is present under the western Mojave. Models of the emplacement of the schist protoliths also imply regional continuity of the schists (1-7), and seismic reflection surveys image the schists as continuous features extending beyond the survey areas (8-11). Constraints in the area of cross section A-A′ (Fig. 2) are from (1,7, 22); cross section B-B′, from (3, 32); cross section C-C′, from (3, 9, 32); cross section D-D′, from (11, 24); and cross section E-E′, from L. T. Silver and J. A. Nourse, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 18, 185 (abstr.) (1986); J. B. Saleeby, L. T. Silver, D. J. Wood, P. E. Malin, ibid. 25, 141 (abstr.) (1993): and L. T. Silver, ibid. p. 147 (abstr.). Also, the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains are structurally continuous with the Tehachapi Mountains [J. B. Saleeby, D. B. Sams, R. K. Kistler, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 10, 443 (1987)] where schist is present (11, 24). The subsurface distribution of the Catalina schist is from (13-15); T. L. Wright, in Active Margin Basins, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem. 52, K, T. Biddle, Ed. (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 1991), pp. 35-134; and J. E. Schoellhamer and A. O. Woodford, U.S. Geol. Surv. Oil Gas Invest. Map OM-117 (1951). There is minor disagreement about the eastern limit of the Catalina Schist under part of the Los Angeles basin (14, 15); here we follow (14).
49. To map the subsurface distribution of the Pelona, Orocopia, and Rand schists, we accept the conclusion of (1) that continuous schist is present under the western Mojave. Models of the emplacement of the schist protoliths also imply regional continuity of the schists (1-7), and seismic reflection surveys image the schists as continuous features extending beyond the survey areas (8-11). Constraints in the area of cross section A-A′ (Fig. 2) are from (1,7, 22); cross section B-B′, from (3, 32); cross section C-C′, from (3, 9, 32); cross section D-D′, from (11, 24); and cross section E-E′, from L. T. Silver and J. A. Nourse, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 18, 185 (abstr.) (1986); J. B. Saleeby, L. T. Silver, D. J. Wood, P. E. Malin, ibid. 25, 141 (abstr.) (1993): and L. T. Silver, ibid. p. 147 (abstr.). Also, the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains are structurally continuous with the Tehachapi Mountains [J. B. Saleeby, D. B. Sams, R. K. Kistler, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 10, 443 (1987)] where schist is present (11, 24). The subsurface distribution of the Catalina schist is from (13-15); T. L. Wright, in Active Margin Basins, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem. 52, K, T. Biddle, Ed. (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 1991), pp. 35-134; and J. E. Schoellhamer and A. O. Woodford, U.S. Geol. Surv. Oil Gas Invest. Map OM-117 (1951). There is minor disagreement about the eastern limit of the Catalina Schist under part of the Los Angeles basin (14, 15); here we follow (14).
50. To map the subsurface distribution of the Pelona, Orocopia, and Rand schists, we accept the conclusion of (1) that continuous schist is present under the western Mojave. Models of the emplacement of the schist protoliths also imply regional continuity of the schists (1-7), and seismic reflection surveys image the schists as continuous features extending beyond the survey areas (8-11). Constraints in the area of cross section A-A′ (Fig. 2) are from (1,7, 22); cross section B-B′, from (3, 32); cross section C-C′, from (3, 9, 32); cross section D-D′, from (11, 24); and cross section E-E′, from L. T. Silver and J. A. Nourse, Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. Programs 18, 185 (abstr.) (1986); J. B. Saleeby, L. T. Silver, D. J. Wood, P. E. Malin, ibid. 25, 141 (abstr.) (1993): and L. T. Silver, ibid. p. 147 (abstr.). Also, the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains are structurally continuous with the Tehachapi Mountains [J. B. Saleeby, D. B. Sams, R. K. Kistler, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 10, 443 (1987)] where schist is present (11, 24). The subsurface distribution of the Catalina schist is from (13-15); T. L. Wright, in Active Margin Basins, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem. 52, K, T. Biddle, Ed. (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 1991), pp. 35-134; and J. E. Schoellhamer and A. O. Woodford, U.S. Geol. Surv. Oil Gas Invest. Map OM-117 (1951). There is minor disagreement about the eastern limit of the Catalina Schist under part of the Los Angeles basin (14, 15); here we follow (14).
51. A. P. Barth, C. E. Jacobson, D. J. May, in Geological Excursions in Southern California and Mexico, M. J. Walawender and B. B. Hanan, Eds. (Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1991), pp. 186-198.
52. We thank L. Silver for providing a compilation of the subsurface distribution of the schists; C. Sanders for clarifying ideas; and S, Day, E. Frost, and G. Girty for reviews of the manuscript. Supported in part by NSF grant EAR-9218704 to H.Z.