Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Postseismic geodetic signature of cold forearc mantle in subduction zones

Nature Geoscience volume 14, pages 104–109 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

A sharp thermal contrast between the cold forearc and the hot arc and backarc is considered fundamental to various subduction-zone processes. However, direct observational evidence for this contrast is rather limited. If this contrast is present, it must cause a rheological contrast in the mantle wedge: elastic in the forearc and viscoelastic in the arc and backarc for the timescale of earthquake cycles. Here we demonstrate that postseismic deformation following large subduction earthquakes provides independent evidence for the thermally controlled rheological contrast. Specifically, we show that seaward postseismic motion is deflected upward at the edge of the cold forearc mantle wedge, causing diagnostic uplift just seaward of the volcanic arc. From numerical simulations of postseismic deformation following the 2011 moment magnitude (Mw) 9 Tohoku-oki, 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, 2007 Mw 8.4 Bengkulu and 1960 Mw 9.5 Chile earthquakes, together with a global synthesis of postseismic uplift measurements, we find that cold forearc mantle is present irrespective of the diversity in tectonic settings. Our findings also indicate that field surveys eight years after the 1960 Chile earthquake provided some of the earliest evidence for viscoelastic postseismic deformation. We suggest that the established link between long-term thermal processes and short-term earthquake cycle deformation is important to understanding subduction-zone dynamics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic illustration of thermal and rheological structure in subduction zones.
Fig. 2: 2D models of postseismic deformation to illustrate the physical process discussed in this paper.
Fig. 3: Model postseismic vertical deformation for four subduction earthquakes compared with observations.
Fig. 4: Observed and modelled deformation associated with the 1960 Mw 9.5 Chile earthquake.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All the data used in this study are from published literature as referenced in Extended Data Fig. 8. The data used in Extended Data Fig. 1 are presented in the Source data. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The computer code used in this study is available from the authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Wada, I. & Wang, K. Common depth of slab–mantle decoupling: reconciling diversity and uniformity of subduction zones. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10, Q10009 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Syracuse, E. M., van Keken, P. E. & Abers, G. A. The global range of subduction zone thermal models. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 183, 73–90 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hyndman, R. D. & Peacock, S. M. Serpentinization of the forearc mantle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 212, 417–432 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Krawczyk, C. M. et al. in The Andes: Active Subduction Orogeny (eds Oncken, O. et al.) 171–192 (Springer, 2006).

  5. Agard, P., Plunder, A., Angiboust, S., Bonnet, G. & Ruh, J. The subduction plate interface: rock record and mechanical coupling (from long to short timescales). Lithos 320, 537–566 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gao, X. & Wang, K. Strength of stick-slip and creeping subduction megathrusts from heat flow observations. Science 345, 1038–1041 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barbot, S. Frictional and structural controls of seismic super-cycles at the Japan trench. Earth Planets Space 72, 63 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Furukawa, Y. Depth of the decoupling plate interface and thermal structure under arcs. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 20005–20013 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis, T. J. et al. Subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate: thermal consequences. J. Geophys. Res. 93, 15207–15225 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. von Herzen, R. et al. A constraint on the shear stress at the Pacific–Australian plate boundary from heat flow and seismicity at the Kermadec forearc. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 6817–6833 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Horiuchi, S. S. & Iwamori, H. A consistent model for fluid distribution, viscosity distribution, and flow-thermal structure in subduction zone. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 3238–3260 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsumura, N., Matsumoto, S., Horiuchi, S. & Hasegawa, A. Three-dimensional attenuation structure beneath the northeastern Japan arc estimated from spectra of small earthquakes. Tectonophysics 319, 241–260 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang, Z., Zhao, D., Liu, X., Chen, C. & Li, X. P and S wave attenuation tomography of the Japan subduction zone. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 18, 1688–1710 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wei, S. S. & Wiens, D. A. P-wave attenuation structure of the Lau back-arc basin and implications for mantle wedge processes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 502, 187–199 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Abers, G. A., Van Keken, P. E. & Hacker, B. R. The cold and relatively dry nature of mantle forearcs in subduction zones. Nat. Geosci. 10, 333–337 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bostock, M. G., Hyndman, R. D., Rondenay, S. & Peacock, S. M. An inverted continental Moho and serpentinization of the forearc mantle. Nature 417, 536–538 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, K., Hu, Y. & He, J. Deformation cycles of subduction earthquakes in a viscoelastic Earth. Nature 484, 327–332 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sun, T. et al. Prevalence of viscoelastic relaxation after the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake. Nature 514, 84–87 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sun, T., Wang, K. & He, J. Crustal deformation following great subduction earthquakes controlled by earthquake size and mantle rheology. J. Geophys. Res. 123, 5323–5345 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Freed, A. M. et al. Resolving depth-dependent subduction zone viscosity and afterslip from postseismic displacements following the 2011 Tohoku-oki, Japan earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 459, 279–290 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Plafker, G. & Savage, J. C. Mechanism of the Chilean earthquakes of May 21 and 22, 1960. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 81, 1001–1030 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thatcher, W. The earthquake deformation cycle at the Nankai Trough, southwest Japan. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 3087–3101 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wahr, J. & Wyss, M. Interpretation of postseismic deformation with a viscoelastic relaxation model. J. Geophys. Res. 85, 6471–6477 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sawai, Y. et al. Transient uplift after a 17th-century earthquake along the Kuril subduction zone. Science 306, 1918–1920 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nishimura, T. Pre-, co-, and post-seismic deformation of the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake and its implication to a paradox in short-term and long-term deformation. J. Disaster Res. 9, 294–302 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Li, S., Fukuda, J. I. & Oncken, O. Geodetic evidence of time-dependent viscoelastic interseismic deformation driven by megathrust locking in the southwest Japan subduction zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL085551 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bürgmann, R. & Dresen, G. Rheology of the lower crust and upper mantle: evidence from rock mechanics, geodesy, and field observations. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 36, 531–567 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pollitz, F. F. Lithosphere and shallow asthenosphere rheology from observations of post-earthquake relaxation. Phys. Earth Planet Inter. 293, 106271 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hayes, G. P., Wald, D. J. & Johnson, R. L. Slab1.0: a three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B01302 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wang, K. et al. Learning from crustal deformation associated with the M9 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake. Geosphere 14, 552–571 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ozawa, S. et al. Preceding, coseismic, and postseismic slips of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, Japan. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B07404 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Yokota, Y., Ishikawa, T. & Watanabe, S. I. Seafloor crustal deformation data along the subduction zones around Japan obtained by GNSS-A observations. Sci. Data 5, 180182 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Li, S. et al. Spatiotemporal variation of mantle viscosity and the presence of cratonic mantle inferred from 8 years of postseismic deformation following the 2010 Maule, Chile, earthquake. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 19, 3272–3285 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Weiss, J. R. et al. Illuminating subduction zone rheological properties in the wake of a giant earthquake. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax6720 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Feng, L. et al. A unified GPS-based earthquake catalog for the Sumatran plate boundary between 2002 and 2013. J. Geophys. Res. 120, 3566–3598 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moreno, M. S., Bolte, J., Klotz, J. & Melnick, D. Impact of megathrust geometry on inversion of coseismic slip from geodetic data: application to the 1960 Chile earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L16310 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ho, T. C., Satake, K., Watada, S. & Fujii, Y. Source estimate for the 1960 Chile earthquake from joint inversion of geodetic and transoceanic tsunami data. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 2812–2828 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Barrientos, S. E. & Ward, S. N. The 1960 Chile earthquake: inversion for slip distribution from surface deformation. Geophys. J. Int. 103, 589–598 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Barrientos, S. E., Plafker, G. & Lorca, E. Postseismic coastal uplift in southern Chile. Geophys. Res. Lett. 19, 701–704 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang, K. et al. Crustal motion in the zone of the 1960 Chile earthquake: detangling earthquake-cycle deformation and forearc-sliver translation. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 8, Q10010 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Luo, H. et al. A recent increase in megathrust locking in the southernmost rupture area of the giant 1960 Chile earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 537, 116200 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Linde, A. T. & Silver, P. G. Elevation changes and the great 1960 Chilean earthquake: support for aseismic slip. Geophys. Res. Lett. 16, 1305–1308 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Muto, J. et al. Coupled afterslip and transient mantle flow after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw1164 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Klein, E., Fleitout, L., Vigny, C. & Garaud, J. D. Afterslip and viscoelastic relaxation model inferred from the large-scale post-seismic deformation following the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake (Chile). Geophys. J. Int. 205, 1455–1472 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Peña, C. et al. Role of lower crust in the postseismic deformation of the 2010 Maule earthquake: insights from a model with power-law rheology. Pure Appl. Geophys. 176, 3913–3928 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Peña, C. et al. Impact of power-law rheology on the viscoelastic relaxation pattern and afterslip distribution following the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 542, 116292 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. van Dinther, Y., Preiswerk, L. E. & Gerya, T. V. A secondary zone of uplift due to megathrust earthquakes. Pure Appl. Geophys. 176, 4043–4068 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Moreno, M. et al. Heterogeneous plate locking in the South–Central Chile subduction zone: building up the next great earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 305, 413–424 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Suito, H. Importance of rheological heterogeneity for interpreting viscoelastic relaxation caused by the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake. Earth Planets Space 69, 21 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Melosh, H. J. & Raefsky, A. A simple and efficient method for introducing faults into finite element computations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 1391–1400 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Peltier, W. R. The impulse response of a Maxwell Earth. Rev. Geophys. 12, 649–668 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang, K., He, J., Dragert, H. & James, T. S. Three-dimensional viscoelastic interseismic deformation model for the Cascadia subduction zone. Earth Planets Space 53, 295–306 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hu, Y., Bürgmann, R., Uchida, N., Banerjee, P. & Freymueller, J. T. Stress-driven relaxation of heterogeneous upper mantle and time-dependent afterslip following the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 385–411 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hu, Y., Bürgmann, R., Freymueller, J. T., Banerjee, P. & Wang, K. Contributions of poroelastic rebound and a weak volcanic arc to the postseismic deformation of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Earth Planets Space 66, 106 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Itoh, Y., Wang, K., Nishimura, T. & He, J. Compliant volcanic arc and backarc crust in southern Kurile suggested by interseismic geodetic deformation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 11790–11798 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Itoh, Y., Nishimura, T., Ariyoshi, K. & Matsumoto, H. Interplate slip following the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake from ocean bottom pressure gauge and land GNSS data. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 4205–4230 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ioki, K. & Tanioka, Y. Re-estimated fault model of the 17th century great earthquake off Hokkaido using tsunami deposit data. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 433, 133–138 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kogan, M. G. et al. The mechanism of postseismic deformation triggered by the 2006–2007 great Kuril earthquakes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 (2011).

  59. Kogan, M. G. et al. Rapid postseismic relaxation after the great 2006–2007 Kuril earthquakes from GPS observations in 2007–2011. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 3691–3706 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Nicolsky, D. J., Freymueller, J. T., Witter, R. C., Suleimani, E. N. & Koehler, R. D. Evidence for shallow megathrust slip across the Unalaska seismic gap during the great 1957 Andreanof Islands earthquake, eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 10–328 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Plafker, G. Tectonics of the March 27, 1964 Alaska Earthquake Professional Paper 543–I (USGS, 1969); https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0543i/

  62. Hergert, T. & Heidbach, O. New insights into the mechanism of postseismic stress relaxation exemplified by the 23 June 2001 Mw = 8.4 earthquake in southern Peru. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (2006).

  63. Bevis, M., Bedford, J. & Caccamise, D. J. II in Geodetic Time Series Analysis in Earth Sciences (eds Montillet, J. P. & Bos, M. S.) 1–27 (Springer, 2020).

  64. Müller, R. D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. & Roest, W. R. Age, spreading rates, and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9, Q04006 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Delouis, B., Nocquet, J. M. & Vallée, M. Slip distribution of the February 27, 2010 Mw = 8.8 Maule earthquake, central Chile, from static and high-rate GPS, InSAR, and broadband teleseismic data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L17305 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lin, Y. N. N. et al. Coseismic and postseismic slip associated with the 2010 Maule earthquake, Chile: characterizing the Arauco Peninsula barrier effect. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 3142–3159 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lorito, S. et al. Limited overlap between the seismic gap and coseismic slip of the great 2010 Chile earthquake. Nat. Geosci. 4, 173–177 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Luttrell, K. M., Tong, X., Sandwell, D. T., Brooks, B. A. & Bevis, M. G. Estimates of stress drop and crustal tectonic stress from the 27 February 2010 Maule, Chile, earthquake: implications for fault strength. J. Geophys. Res. 116, B11401 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Moreno, M. et al. Toward understanding tectonic control on the Mw 8.8 2010 Maule Chile earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 321, 152–165 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Pollitz, F. F. et al. Coseismic slip distribution of the February 27, 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L09309 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Tong, X. et al. The 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake: downdip rupture limit revealed by space geodesy. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L24311 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Vigny, C. et al. The 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule megathrust earthquake of central Chile, monitored by GPS. Science 332, 1417–1421 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Yue, H. et al. Localized fault slip to the trench in the 2010 Maule, Chile Mw = 8.8 earthquake from joint inversion of high-rate GPS, teleseismic body waves, InSAR, campaign GPS, and tsunami observations. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 7786–7804 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Bird, P. An updated digital model of plate boundaries. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 4, 1027 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Nakagawa, H. Development and validation of GEONET new analysis strategy (version 4) (in Japanese). J. Geogr. Surv. Inst. 118, 1–8 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Tsang, L. L. et al. Afterslip following the 2007 Mw 8.4 Bengkulu earthquake in Sumatra loaded the 2010 Mw 7.8 Mentawai tsunami earthquake rupture zone. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 9034–9049 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank X. Zhou for discussion. H.L. was supported by a James A. & Laurette Agnew Memorial Award, a University of Victoria Graduate Award, Graduate Support from Ocean Networks Canada, and Discovery Grant RGPIN-2016-03738 to K.W. from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. This is Geological Survey of Canada contribution 20200524.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

    Haipeng Luo & Kelin Wang

  2. Pacific Geoscience Centre, Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada

    Kelin Wang

Authors
  1. Haipeng Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

H.L. and K.W. together designed the research and did the writing. H.L. carried out data synthesis and analyses and numerical modelling.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Haipeng Luo or Kelin Wang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Geoscience thanks Sylvain Barbot, Onno Oncken and Fred Pollitz for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Tamara Goldin; Stefan Lachowycz.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Global synthesis of postseismic uplift following subduction earthquakes observed in the forearc near the volcanic arc.

Events are labelled with index numbers (circled) as listed in Extended Data Fig. 8, year of occurrence, moment magnitude, and age of the subducting plate at trench. Black-solid line boxes approximately outline the map areas of Fig. 4c and Extended Data Figs. 2, 4, and 6. Plate boundaries (grey lines) are from ref. 74. Locations of volcanoes are from Aster Volcano Archive (NASA, METI; https://gbank.gsj.jp/vsidb/image/).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Map view of observed and modelled postseismic deformation 5 years after the 2011 Mw 9 Tohoku-oki earthquake.

a, Horizontal component. Coseismic slip distribution (Extended Data Fig. 9) is contoured at 10 m interval (coppery lines). Cumulative afterslip, contoured at 1 m interval (grey lines), is slightly modified from ref. 30. b, Vertical component. The black solid line shows the location of the corridor in Fig. 3. Land GNSS data are based on GNSS daily solutions from the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI)31,75, and seafloor GNSS data are from Japan Coast Guard32. Time series of the labelled land and seafloor GNSS sites are shown in Extended Data Fig. 3. In these and other map view figures in Fig. 4 and Extended Data, plate interface depth is contoured using dashed lines, and locations of volcanoes from Aster Volcano Archive (NASA, METI; https://gbank.gsj.jp/vsidb/image/) are indicated using red triangles.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Observed (colour symbols) and modelled (black curves) time series of GNSS sites after the 2011 Mw 9 Tohoku-oki earthquake.

From left to right: east, north, and vertical components. Site locations are shown in Extended Data Fig. 2. a, Land sites. b, Seafloor sites.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Map view of observed and modelled postseismic deformation 5 years after the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake.

a, Horizontal component. Coseismic slip distribution (Extended Data Fig. 9) is contoured at 4 m interval (coppery lines). Cumulative afterslip, contoured at 0.3 m interval (grey lines), is modelled using the method of ref. 19. b, Vertical component. The black line shows the location of the corridor in Fig. 3. GNSS data are from ref. 33. Time series of the labelled GNSS sites are shown in Extended Data Fig. 5.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Observed (colour symbols) and modelled (black curves) time series of GNSS sites after the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake.

From left to right: east, north, and vertical components. Site locations are shown in Extended Data Fig. 4.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Map view of observed and modelled postseismic deformation 5 years after the 2007 Mw 8.4 Bengkulu earthquake.

a, Horizontal component. Coseismic slip distribution is contoured at 1 m interval (coppery lines; ref. 76). Cumulative afterslip, contoured at 0.4 m interval (grey lines), is modelled using the method of ref. 19. b, Vertical component. The black line shows the location of the corridor in Fig. 3. GNSS data are from ref. 35. Time series of the labelled GNSS sites are shown in Extended Data Fig. 7.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Observed (colour symbols) and modelled (black curves) time series of GNSS sites after the 2007 Mw 8.4 Bengkulu earthquake.

From left to right: east, north, and vertical components. Site locations are shown in Extended Data Fig. 6.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Summary of postseismic forearc uplift observations following subduction earthquakes.

Locations of the earthquakes are shown in Extended Data Fig. 1.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Parameters for the postseismic deformation models of the four earthquakes shown in Fig. 3.

Map views of the model results for the Tohoku-oki, Maule, and Bengkulu earthquakes are shown in Extended Data Figs. 2, 4 and 6, respectively. Those for the Chile earthquake are shown in Fig. 4.

Extended Data Fig. 10 2-D Models of postseismic deformation to test the effects of upper plate thickness.

The model setup is identical to that in Fig. 2 (Methods), except for the use of different upper plate thicknesses and/or coseismic slip depths in different simulations. Shown cumulative postseismic displacements are 5 years after an earthquake, normalized by peak coseismic slip. a, Model tests showing how the upper plate thickness affects postseismic forearc uplift with or without the elastic cold nose. Minor uplift in the area of interest may occur without the cold nose if the upper plate in the warm arc and backarc area is unreasonably thick (that is, 50 km). b, Same as a except for deeper coseismic slip. c, Model structure and parameters. Inset shows coseismic slip distribution along the megathrust for the models in a (Reference) and b (Deeper).

Source data

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Source data of Extended Data Fig. 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, H., Wang, K. Postseismic geodetic signature of cold forearc mantle in subduction zones. Nat. Geosci. 14, 104–109 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00679-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00679-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing