Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

M. Cisternas

Publications and source records attributed to M. Cisternas.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2017

Exploring the historical earthquakes preceding the giant 1960 Chile earthquake in a time‐dependent seismogenic zone

New documentary findings and available paleoseismological evidence provide both new insights into the historical seismic sequence that ended with the giant 1960 south-central Chile earthquake and relevant information about the region’s seismogenic zone. According to the few available written records, this region was previously struck by earthquakes of varying size in 1575, 1737, and 1837. We expanded the existing compilations of the effects of the two latter using unpublished first-hand accounts found in archives in Chile, Peru, Spain, and New England. We further investigated their sources by comparing the newly unearthed historical data and available paleoseismological evidence with the effects predicted by hypothetical dislocations. The results reveal significant differences in the along-strike and depth distribution of the ruptures in 1737, 1837, and 1960. While the 1737 rupture likely occurred in the northern half of the 1960 region, on a narrow and deep portion of the megathrust, the 1837 rupture occurred mainly in the southern half and slipped over a wide range of depth. Such a wide rupture in 1837 disagrees with the narrow and shallow seismogenic zone currently inferred along this region. If in fact there is now a narrow zone where 200 years ago there was a wider one, it means that the seismogenic zone changes with time, perhaps between seismic cycles. Such change probably explains the evident variability in both size and location of the great earthquakes that have struck this region over the last centuries, as evidenced by written history, and through millennia, as inferred from paleoseismology.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2017

Reexamination of the magnitudes for the 1906 and 1922 Chilean earthquakes using Japanese tsunami amplitudes: Implications for source depth constraints

Far-field tsunami records from the Japanese tide gauge network allow the reexamination of the moment magnitudes ( M w ) for the 1906 and 1922 Chilean earthquakes, which to date rely on limited information mainly from seismological observations alone. Tide gauges along the Japanese coast provide extensive records of tsunamis triggered by six great ( M w >8) Chilean earthquakes with instrumentally determined moment magnitudes. These tsunami records are used to explore the dependence of tsunami amplitudes in Japan on the parent earthquake magnitude of Chilean origin. Using the resulting regression parameters together with tide gauge amplitudes measured in Japan we estimate apparent moment magnitudes of M w 8.0–8.2 and M w 8.5–8.6 for the 1906 central and 1922 north-central Chile earthquakes. The large discrepancy of the 1906 magnitude estimated from the tsunami observed in Japan as compared with those previously determined from seismic waves ( M s 8.4) suggests a deeper than average source with reduced tsunami excitation. A deep dislocation along the Chilean megathrust would favor uplift of the coast rather than beneath the sea, giving rise to a smaller tsunami and producing effects consistent with those observed in 1906. The 1922 magnitude inferred from far-field tsunami amplitudes appear to better explain the large extent of damage and the destructive tsunami that were locally observed following the earthquake than the lower seismic magnitudes ( M s 8.3) that were likely affected by the well-known saturation effects. Thus, a repeat of the large 1922 earthquake poses seismic and tsunami hazards in a region identified as a mature seismic gap.

Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth↗
USGS2017

Unusual geologic evidence of coeval seismic shaking and tsunamis shows variability in earthquake size and recurrence in the area of the giant 1960 Chile earthquake

An uncommon coastal sedimentary record combines evidence for seismic shaking and coincident tsunami inundation since AD 1000 in the region of the largest earthquake recorded instrumentally: the giant 1960 southern Chile earthquake (Mw 9.5). The record reveals significant variability in the size and recurrence of megathrust earthquakes and ensuing tsunamis along this part of the Nazca-South American plate boundary. A 500-m long coastal outcrop on Isla Chiloé, midway along the 1960 rupture, provides continuous exposure of soil horizons buried locally by debris-flow diamicts and extensively by tsunami sand sheets. The diamicts flattened plants that yield geologically precise ages to correlate with well-dated evidence elsewhere. The 1960 event was preceded by three earthquakes that probably resembled it in their effects, in AD 898 - 1128, 1300 - 1398 and 1575, and by five relatively smaller intervening earthquakes. Earthquakes and tsunamis recurred exceptionally often between AD 1300 and 1575. Their average recurrence interval of 85 years only slightly exceeds the time already elapsed since 1960. This inference is of serious concern because no earthquake has been anticipated in the region so soon after the 1960 event, and current plate locking suggests that some segments of the boundary are already capable of producing large earthquakes. This long-term earthquake and tsunami history of one of the world's most seismically active subduction zones provides an example of variable rupture mode, in which earthquake size and recurrence interval vary from one earthquake to the next.

Marine Geology↗
USGS2011

Palaeotsunamis in the Pacific Islands

The recent 29 September 2009 South Pacific and 27 February 2010 Chilean events are a graphic reminder that the tsunami hazard and risk for the Pacific Ocean region should not be forgotten. Pacific Islands Countries (PICs) generally have short (< 150 years) historic records, which means that to understand their tsunami hazard and risk researchers must study evidence for prehistoric events. However, our current state of knowledge of palaeotsunamis in PICs as opposed to their circum-Pacific counterparts is minimal at best. We briefly outline the limited extent of our current knowledge and propose an innovative methodology for future research in the Pacific. Each PIC represents a point source of information in the Pacific Ocean and this would allow their palaeotsunami records to be treated akin to palaeo-DART® (Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis) buoys. Contemporaneous palaeotsunamis from local, regional and distant sources could be identified by using the spatial distribution of island records throughout the Pacific Ocean in conjunction with robust event chronologies. This would be highly innovative and, more importantly, would help provide the building blocks necessary to achieve more meaningful disaster risk reduction for PICs.

Earth-Science Reviews↗
USGS2005

Predecessors of the giant 1960 Chile earthquake

It is commonly thought that the longer the time since last earthquake, the larger the next earthquake's slip will be. But this logical predictor of earthquake size, unsuccessful for large earthquakes on a strike-slip fault, fails also with the giant 1960 Chile earthquake of magnitude 9.5 (ref. 3). Although the time since the preceding earthquake spanned 123 years (refs 4, 5), the estimated slip in 1960, which occurred on a fault between the Nazca and South American tectonic plates, equalled 250-350 years' worth of the plate motion. Thus the average interval between such giant earthquakes on this fault should span several centuries. Here we present evidence that such long intervals were indeed typical of the last two millennia. We use buried soils and sand layers as records of tectonic subsidence and tsunami inundation at an estuary midway along the 1960 rupture. In these records, the 1960 earthquake ended a recurrence interval that had begun almost four centuries before, with an earthquake documented by Spanish conquistadors in 1575. Two later earthquakes, in 1737 and 1837, produced little if any subsidence or tsunami at the estuary and they therefore probably left the fault partly loaded with accumulated plate motion that the 1960 earthquake then expended. ?? 2005 Nature Publishing Group.

Nature↗