skip to main content

Title: Reply to “Comment on ‘Two Foreshock Sequences Post Gulia and Wiemer (2019)’ by Kelian Dascher-Cousineau, Thorne Lay, and Emily E. Brodsky” by Laura Gulia and Stefan Wiemer
Abstract Gulia and Wiemer (2019; hereafter, GW2019) proposed a near-real-time monitoring system to discriminate between foreshocks and aftershocks. Our analysis (Dascher-Cousineau et al., 2020; hereinater, DC2020) tested the sensitivity of the proposed Foreshock Traffic-Light System output to parameter choices left to expert judgment for the 2019 Ridgecrest Mw 7.1 and 2020 Puerto Rico Mw 6.4 earthquake sequences. In the accompanying comment, Gulia and Wiemer (2021) suggest that at least six different methodological deviations lead to different pseudoprospective warning levels, particularly for the Ridgecrest aftershock sequence which they had separately evaluated. Here, we show that for four of the six claimed deviations, we conformed to the criteria outlined in GW2019. Two true deviations from the defined procedure are clarified and justified here. We conclude as we did originally, by emphasizing the influence of expert judgment on the outcome in the analysis.
; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Seismological Research Letters
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
3259 to 3264
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract Recognizing earthquakes as foreshocks in real time would provide a valuable forecasting capability. In a recent study, Gulia and Wiemer (2019) proposed a traffic-light system that relies on abrupt changes in b-values relative to background values. The approach utilizes high-resolution earthquake catalogs to monitor localized regions around the largest events and distinguish foreshock sequences (reduced b-values) from aftershock sequences (increased b-values). The recent well-recorded earthquake foreshock sequences in Ridgecrest, California, and Maria Antonia, Puerto Rico, provide an opportunity to test the procedure. For Ridgecrest, our b-value time series indicates an elevated risk of a larger impending earthquake during the Mw 6.4 foreshock sequence and provides an ambiguous identification of the onset of the Mw 7.1 aftershock sequence. However, the exact result depends strongly on expert judgment. Monte Carlo sampling across a range of reasonable decisions most often results in ambiguous warning levels. In the case of the Puerto Rico sequence, we record significant drops in b-value prior to and following the largest event (Mw 6.4) in the sequence. The b-value has still not returned to background levels (12 February 2020). The Ridgecrest sequence roughly conforms to expectations; the Puerto Rico sequence will only do so if a larger event occurs in themore »future with an ensuing b-value increase. Any real-time implementation of this approach will require dense instrumentation, consistent (versioned) low completeness catalogs, well-calibrated maps of regionalized background b-values, systematic real-time catalog production, and robust decision making about the event source volumes to analyze.« less
  2. ABSTRACT The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence culminated in the largest seismic event in California since the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine earthquake. Here, we combine geodetic and seismic data to study the rupture process of both the 4 July Mw 6.4 foreshock and the 6 July Mw 7.1 mainshock. The results show that the Mw 6.4 foreshock rupture started on a northwest-striking right-lateral fault, and then continued on a southwest-striking fault with mainly left-lateral slip. Although most moment release during the Mw 6.4 foreshock was along the southwest-striking fault, slip on the northwest-striking fault seems to have played a more important role in triggering the Mw 7.1 mainshock that happened ∼34  hr later. Rupture of the Mw 7.1 mainshock was characterized by dominantly right-lateral slip on a series of overall northwest-striking fault strands, including the one that had already been activated during the nucleation of the Mw 6.4 foreshock. The maximum slip of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake was ∼5  m, located at a depth range of 3–8 km near the Mw 7.1 epicenter, corresponding to a shallow slip deficit of ∼20%–30%. Both the foreshock and mainshock had a relatively low-rupture velocity of ∼2  km/s, which is possibly related to the geometric complexity and immaturity of the eastern California shear zone faults. The 2019more »Ridgecrest earthquake produced significant stress perturbations on nearby fault networks, especially along the Garlock fault segment immediately southwest of the 2019 Ridgecrest rupture, in which the coulomb stress increase was up to ∼0.5  MPa. Despite the good coverage of both geodetic and seismic observations, published coseismic slip models of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence show large variations, which highlight the uncertainty of routinely performed earthquake rupture inversions and their interpretation for underlying rupture processes.« less
  3. Abstract Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar is an important tool for imaging surface deformation from large continental earthquakes. Here, we present maps of coseismic displacement and strain from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes using multiple Sentinel-1 images. We provide three types of interferometric products. (1) Standard interferograms from two look directions provide an overview of the deformation and can be used for modeling coseismic slip. (2) Phase gradient maps from stacks of coseismic interferograms provide high-resolution (∼30  m) images of strain concentration and surface fracturing that can be used to guide field surveys. (3) High-pass filtered, stacked, unwrapped phase is decomposed into east–west and up–down, south–north components and is used to determine the sense of fault slip. The resulting phase gradient maps reveal over 300 surface fractures, including triggered slip on the Garlock fault. The east–west component of high-pass filtered phase reveals the polarity of the strike-slip offset (right lateral or left lateral) for many of the fractures. We find a small number of fractures that have slip polarity that is retrograde to the background tectonic stress. This is similar to observations of retrograde slip observed near the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine rupture, but the Ridgecrest observations are more completely imaged by the frequent and high-qualitymore »acquisitions from the twin Sentinel-1 spacecrafts. Determining whether the retrograde features are triggered slip on existing faults, or compliant fault deformation in response to stress changes from the Ridgecrest earthquakes, or new Coulomb-style failures, will require additional field work, modeling, and analysis.« less
  4. Abstract Surface rupture from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence, initially associated with the Mw 6.4 foreshock, occurred on 4 July on a ∼17  km long, northeast–southwest-oriented, left-lateral zone of faulting. Following the Mw 7.1 mainshock on 5 July (local time), extensive northwest–southeast-oriented, right-lateral faulting was then also mapped along a ∼50  km long zone of faults, including subparallel splays in several areas. The largest slip was observed in the epicentral area and crossing the dry lakebed of China Lake to the southeast. Surface fault rupture mapping by a large team, reported elsewhere, was used to guide the airborne data acquisition reported here. Rapid rupture mapping allowed for accurate and efficient flight line planning for the high-resolution light detection and ranging (lidar) and aerial photography. Flight line planning trade-offs were considered to allocate the medium (25 pulses per square meter [ppsm]) and high-resolution (80 ppsm) lidar data collection polygons. The National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping acquired the airborne imagery with a Titan multispectral lidar system and Digital Modular Aerial Camera (DiMAC) aerial digital camera, and U.S. Geological Survey acquired Global Positioning System ground control data. This effort required extensive coordination with the Navy as much of the airborne data acquisition occurred within their restricted airspacemore »at the China Lake ranges.« less
  5. ABSTRACT We investigate the deformation processes during the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence by combining Global Navigation Satellite Systems, strong-motion, and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar datasets in a joint inversion. The spatial complementarity of slip between the Mw 6.4 foreshock, Mw 7.1 mainshock, and afterslip suggests the importance of static stress transfer as a triggering mechanism during the rupture sequence. The coseismic slip of the foreshock concentrates mainly on the east-northeast–west-southwest fault above the hypocenter at depths of 2–8 km. The slip distribution of the mainshock straddles the region above the hypocenter with two isolated patches located to the north-northwest and south-southeast, respectively. The geodetically determined moment magnitudes of the foreshock and mainshock are equivalent to moment magnitudes Mw 6.4 and 7.0, assuming a rigidity of 30 GPa. We find a significant shallow slip deficit (>60%) in the Ridgecrest ruptures, likely resulting from the immature fault system in which the sequence occurred. Rapid afterslip concentrates at depths of 2–6 km, surrounding the rupture areas of the foreshock and mainshock. The ruptures also accelerated viscoelastic flow at lower-crustal depths. The Garlock fault was loaded at several locations, begging the question of possible delayed triggering.