subject

The Seismic Record

The Seismic Record: explore 6 source-linked works published from 2025 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: usgs. Collection updated 2026-09-14. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

USGS2026

Only very strong shaking can break a tree

A handful of credible accounts, both recent and historical, describe trees being broken during earthquakes. Apart from landslides and tsunamis, such accounts are uncommon, suggesting that trees break only when ground acceleration is extreme or when trees are especially vulnerable to breakage. Here, I consider the question: what ground acceleration is required to break a living tree? I present simplified first‐principles calculations, considering the properties of common trees, focusing on tall, thin trees that can be approximated as uniform vertical cantilevers. The results suggest that, possibly excepting tall trees with heavy canopies, standing trees can only be broken by shaking approaching or exceeding 1 g , as anticipated by the rarity of documented accounts of snapped trees. I briefly consider several well‐documented instances of tree damage during strong earthquakes, drawing inferences about local ground motions.

The Seismic Record↗

USGS2026

Earthquake rupture arrest from depth‐dependent frictional stability on the Pütürge segment of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Türkiye (Turkey)

Determining why earthquake ruptures stop is a central challenge in earthquake science and seismic hazard assessment. The Pütürge segment of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Türkiye, exhibits shallow creep (<∼3 km depth) yet hosts M > 6.5 earthquake ruptures at greater depth. Here, we evaluate whether variations in frictional stability along this segment aided arrest of the 2020 M 6.7 Elaziğ and 2023 M 7.8 Pazarcık earthquake ruptures. Analysis of Sentinel‐1 Synthetic Aperture Radar imagery indicates the 2023 M 7.8 rupture propagated laterally into a metamorphic massif within the Pütürge segment, where slip rapidly decayed below detection limits. Creepmeters along this segment recorded no significant surface afterslip (<3 mm) in the following year. To investigate this fault‐slip behavior, we conducted triaxial friction experiments on Pütürge fault gouge sampled from an outcrop exposure. The gouge, composed primarily of muscovite, quartz, and calcite, is velocity strengthening at conditions approximating 0–2.5 km depth and velocity weakening at 4–5 km depth. This transition to velocity‐weakening friction is associated with enhanced comminution and shear localization observed microstructurally. Our results suggest that depth‐dependent frictional stability of the Pütürge fault segment facilitates rupture nucleation and propagation at depth while maintaining rupture‐arresting behavior near Earth’s surface.

Pütürge segment of the East Anatolian Fault Zone↗

USGS2026

New constraints on northeast Seattle basin structure from converted seismic waves

The Seattle basin is a deep sedimentary basin in the Seattle–Bellevue, Washington metropolitan area within the Puget Lowland of Washington State. We determine the structure of a portion of the basin and the underlying basement using analysis of P waves converted from direct S incident from below. A deep local crustal event beneath Monroe, about 35 km northeast of Seattle, was recorded by a 100‐station nodal array deployed in 2019. The event produced a variety of coherent seismic phases, including converted waves from the sediment—basement boundary, internal structure within the basin, and additional crustal discontinuities. Using observed Sp converted waves, we apply an adjoint‐based full waveform inversion (FWI) method to determine the amplitude and extent of seismic discontinuities at depth. We find the strongest source of converted waves for this event lies ∼6 to 7 km depth below northern Lake Washington, interpreted to be the local depth to basement rock. The newly imaged shallow basement structure may be part of a deformation zone associated with the Siletzia eastern boundary. Our results highlight the utility of converted seismic waves recorded by a dense array, combined with an FWI method, to illuminate crustal structure.

Washington↗

USGS2026

Measuring stress In high pressure deformation experiments with high speed fiber-optics

High‐pressure, high‐temperature rock deformation experiments are essential for understanding deep Earth processes, but accurately measuring stress is challenging due to the inaccuracy introduced by seal friction within the apparatus and large inertia, which affects earthquake process measurements made far from the experimental fault. To overcome these limitations, we developed and implemented a simple, compact fiber‐optic sensor based on an External Cavity Fabry–Perot Interferometer for in situ load measurement on a piston inside the pressure vessel of a Griggs‐type high‐pressure apparatus. The sensor can be used at sample temperatures up to 800°C for both slow creep and fast rupture testing with bandwidth capability from DC to 6 MHz. Two important experimental results are described: (1) the first direct measurements of seal friction in this apparatus type; these measurements record seal friction approximately one‐tenth of the confining pressure under both low (150 MPa) and high (1 GPa) pressure conditions; and (2) high‐temporal resolution capture of dynamic stress drops during stick‐slip faulting events at high‐confining pressure, revealing near‐fault wave propagation details, high‐frequency oscillations, and implying high‐transient slip rates (6–12 m/s) previously inaccessible with external sensors.

The Seismic Record↗

USGS2026

Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake

The 29 July 2025 M w 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia, earthquake was the sixth largest instrumentally recorded earthquake. This event was seismically well observed at regional and teleseismic distances, but publicly available near‐source data were sparse at the time of the event, presenting unique challenges for rapid source and impact characterization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center provides global real‐time monitoring for earthquakes, including rapid response information products that estimate source characteristics, shaking, and the resulting impacts. We describe the USGS rapid response earthquake information products following the Kamchatka event and discuss their implications for ongoing hazards in the region. We describe potential improvements to our response workflows motivated by this event, including more rapid constraints on source geometries and the automated selection of fault geometries for finite‐fault inversions. The rapid response products together support the interpretation of a unilateral southwestward rupture with significant slip on the southwestern end of the rupture extent. The M w 8.8–9.0 event in 1952, which ruptured a comparable extent of the Kuril–Kamchatka subduction interface, has many similarities to the 2025 rupture. This illustrates that slip deficits may remain following great earthquakes and highlights the usefulness of comparative studies between historic and modern events.

Kuril-Kamchatka subduction zone↗

USGS2025

Quantitative evaluations of earthquake early warning performance using “Did You Feel It?” and post-alert surveys

We examine responses to the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) survey and its companion earthquake early warning (EEW) questionnaire to assess the performance of the U.S. ShakeAlert EEW system directly from the alert recipients’ perspectives. ShakeAlert rapidly detects earthquakes and develops alert information, but as official alert delivery partners issue these alerts, it is thus difficult to determine how many people were alerted and when. We investigate DYFI reports for six California earthquakes that had EEW alerts and substantial responses to the DYFI EEW questionnaire. Comparisons of ShakeAlert predictions to reported intensities demonstrate that magnitude estimation accuracy is not necessarily indicative of ground-motion prediction accuracy. Perceived warning time distributions indicate that estimating maximum-expected warning times using the S-wave arrival is a reasonable assumption when discussing public EEW performance. However, we also find many reports of shorter warning times, late alerts, and missed alerts than expected based on ShakeAlert publication times, suggesting alert delivery latencies are substantial and highly variable. The novelty of our analysis is that we demonstrate that the DYFI EEW survey provides useful EEW efficacy information—independent of the specific alerting pathway—that can be used to inform our choices for conveying EEW performance.

California↗

Compare source metadata on this page

Work	Published	Source identifier	Source
Only very strong shaking can break a tree	2026-04-01	70276936	usgs
Earthquake rupture arrest from depth‐dependent frictional stability on the Pütürge segment of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, Türkiye (Turkey)	2026-03-19	70276967	usgs
New constraints on northeast Seattle basin structure from converted seismic waves	2026-03-18	70276913	usgs
Measuring stress In high pressure deformation experiments with high speed fiber-optics	2026-01-09	70277757	usgs
Rapid characterization of the 2025 Mw 8.8 Kamchatka, Russia earthquake	2026-01-02	70273333	usgs
Quantitative evaluations of earthquake early warning performance using “Did You Feel It?” and post-alert surveys	2025-06-24	70268812	usgs

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.