Analysing the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes with recent instrumentally recorded aftershocks

Nature

Volumn 429, Issue 6989, 2004, Pages 284-288

  Mueller, Karl ^a   Hough, Susan E ^b   Bilham, Roger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKES; LIQUEFACTION; STRESSES;

AFTERSHOCKS; MICROEARTHQUAKES; MICROSEISMISITY;

SEISMOLOGY;

CARBON 14;

AFTERSHOCK; EARTHQUAKE; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC WAVE; TRIGGER MECHANISM;

ARTICLE; EARTHQUAKE; GEOMETRY; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEDIMENT; STRESS;

NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 2542506275     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature02557     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Johnston, A. C. & Schweig, E. S. The enigma of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 24, 339-384 (1996).
2. Kilb, D., Gomberg, J. & Bodin, P. Triggering of earthquake aftershocks by dynamic stresses. Nature 408, 570-574 (2000).
3. Das, S. & Scholz, C. H. Off-fault aftershock clusters caused by shear-stress increase. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 1669-1675 (1981).
4. Reasenberg, P. A. & Jones, L. M. Earthquake hazard after a mainshock in California. Science 243, 1173-1176 (1989).
5. Toda, S., Stein, R. S., Reasenberg, P. A., Dieterich, J. H. & Yoshida, A. Stress transferred from the 1995 Mw = 6.9 Kobe Japan, shock: Effect on aftershocks and future earthquake probabilities. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24,543-24,565 (1998).
6. Seeber, L. & Armbruster, J. G. Earthquakes as beacons of stress change. Nature 407, 69-72 (2000).
7. Ebel, J., Bonjer, E. & Oncescu, M. Paleoseismicity: Seismicity evidence for past large earthquakes. Seismol. Res. Lett. 71, 283-294 (2000).
8. Gan, W. & Prescott, W. H. Crustal deformation rates in central and eastern U.S. inferred from GPS. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 3733-3736 (2001).
9. Dieterich, J. A constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 2601-2618 (1994).
10. Nuttli, O. W. The Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811 and 1812: Intensities, ground motion, and magnitudes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 63, 227-248 (1973).
11. Mueller, K. & Pujol, J. Three-dimensional geometry of the Reelfoot blind thrust: implications for moment release and earthquake magnitude in the New Madrid seismic zone. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91, 1563-1573 (2001).
12. Johnston, A. C. Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in stable continental regions III, New Madrid 1811-1812, Charleston 1886, and Lisbon 1755. Geophys. J. Int. 126, 314-344 (1996).
13. Guccione, M. J., VanArsdale, R. B. & Hehr, L. H. Origin and age of the Manila high and associated Big Lake "sunklands" in the New Madrid seismic zone, northeastern Arkansas. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 112, 579-590 (2000).
14. Hough, S. E., Armbruster, J. G., Seeber, L. & Hough, J. F. On the modified Mercalli intensities and magnitudes of the 1811-1812 New Madrid, central United States earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 23839-23864 (2000).
15. Baldwin, J. N., Barron, A. D., Kelson, K. I., Harris, J. B. & Cashman, S. Preliminary paleoseismic and geophysical investigation of the north Farrenburg lineament: Primary tectonic deformation associated with the New Madrid North fault? Seismol. Res. Lett. 73, 393-413 (2002).
16. Odum, J. K., Stephenson, W. J., Shedlock, K. M. & Pratt, T. L. Near-surface structural model for deformation associated with the February 7, 1812, New Madrid, Missouri, earthquake. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 110, 149-162 (1998).
17. Van Arsdale, R. B., Kelson, K. I. & Lumsden, C. H. Northern extension of the Tennessee Reelfoot scarp into Kentucky and Missouri. Seismol. Res. Lett 65, 57-62 (1995).
18. Kelson, K. I., Simpson, G. D., VanArsdale, R. B., Haraden, C. C. & Lettis, W. R. Multiple late Holocene earthquakes along the Reelfoot fault, central New Madrid seismic zone. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 6151-6170 (1992).
19. Guccione, M. J. et al. Stream response to repeated coseismic folding, Tiptonville Dome, western Tennessee. Geomorph 43, 313-349 (2002).
20. Gomberg, J. & Ellis, M. Topography and tectonics of the central New Madrid seismic zone: Results of numerical experiments using a three-dimensional boundary element program. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 20299-20310 (1994).
21. Bakun, W. H. & Wentworth, C. M. Estimating earthquake location and magnitude from seismic intensity data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 1502-1521 (1997).
22. Hough, S. E. & Martin, S. Magnitude estimates of two large aftershocks of the 16 December 1811 New Madrid earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 3259-3268 (2002).
23. Berry, D. L. The Illinois earthquake of 1811 and 1812. Illinois State Hist. Soc. Trans. 12, 74-78 (1908).
24. Stauder, W. & Nuttli, O. W. Seismic studies-south-central Illinois earthquake of November 9, 1968. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 60, 973-981 (1970).
25. Hough, S. E. Triggered earthquakes and the 1811-1812 New Madrid, central U.S. earthquake sequence. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91, 1574-1581 (2001).
26. Tuttle, M. P. The use of liquefaction features in paleoseismology: Lessons learned in the New Madrid seismic zone, central United States. J. Seismol. 5, 361-380 (2001).
27. Pavlis, G. L., Rudman, A. J., Pope, B. P., Hamburger, M. W. & Bear, G. W. Seismicity of the Wabash Valley seismic zone based on a temporary seismic array experiment. Seismol. Res. Lett. 73, 751-761 (2002).