LN S.am - Eqhazard Pnas2022

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/366238547
Updated concepts of seismic gaps and asperities to assess great earthquake

hazard along South America
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · December 2022

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2216843119
CITATIONS READS
12 742
2 authors:
Thorne Lay Stuart Nishenko

University of California, Santa Cruz 68 PUBLICATIONS 3,734 CITATIONS
562 PUBLICATIONS 22,847 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Thorne Lay on 04 July 2024.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INAUGURAL ARTICLE | EARTH, ATMOSPHERIC, AND PLANETARY SCIENCES OPEN ACCESS
Updated concepts of seismic gaps and asperities to assess great

earthquake hazard along South America
Thorne Laya,1 and Stuart P. Nishenkoa
This contribution is part of the special series of Inaugural Articles by members of the National Academy of Sciences elected in 2014.
Contributed by Thorne Lay, received October 2, 2022; accepted November 9, 2022; reviewed by Sergio Barrientos, Susan Beck, and Lynn R. Sykes
So far in this century, six very large–magnitude earthquakes (MW ≥ 7.8) have ruptured
separate portions of the subduction zone plate boundary of western South America Significance
along Ecuador, Peru, and Chile. Each source region had last experienced a very large
earthquake from 74 to 261 y earlier. This history led to their designation in advance Earthquakes involve complex,
as seismic gaps with potential to host future large earthquakes. Deployments of geo- nonlinear frictional instabilities
detic and seismic monitoring instruments in several of the seismic gaps enhanced and dynamical processes that
resolution of the subsequent faulting processes, revealing preevent patterns of geodetic undermine deterministic
slip deficit accumulation and heterogeneous coseismic slip on the megathrust fault. predictability. Nonetheless, plate
Localized regions of large slip, or asperities, appear to have influenced variability in boundary strain energy budgets,
how each source region ruptured relative to prior events, as repeated ruptures have driven by long-term relative plate
had similar, but not identical slip distributions. We consider updated perspectives of
motions, provide a degree of
seismic gaps, asperities, and geodetic locking to assess current very large earthquake
cyclicity in occurrence of very
hazard along the South American subduction zone, noting regions of particular con-
cern in northern Ecuador and Colombia (1958/1906 rupture zone), southeastern large earthquake ruptures on
Peru (southeasternmost 1868 rupture zone), north Chile (1877 rupture zone), and subduction zone plate boundary
north-central Chile (1922 rupture zone) that have large geodetic slip deficit meas- (megathrust) faults. For the
urements and long intervals (from 64 to 154 y) since prior large events have struck largest earthquakes, a basic cycle
those regions. Expanded geophysical measurements onshore and offshore in these of interseismic fault locking and
seismic gaps may provide critical information about the strain cycle and fault stress strain accumulation, abrupt
buildup late in the seismic cycle in advance of the future great earthquakes that will
Downloaded from https://www.pnas.org by 73.170.90.236 on December 13, 2022 from IP address 73.170.90.236.
coseismic fault sliding and strain

eventually strike each region. energy release, and postseismic
stress adjustment occurs,
asperities | seismic gaps | slip deficit | South American large earthquakes | seismic hazards
basically compatible with the
Earth’s largest earthquakes occur on subduction zone plate boundary faults, or meg- elastic-rebound theory of
athrusts, where stick-slip sliding accommodates convergent relative plate motions. faulting. Heterogeneous slip and
Long-term relative plate motions result in episodic stress buildup and elastic strain triggering interactions give rise to
accumulation on either side of frictionally locked portions of the megathrusts followed irregularity in this seismic cycle,
by abrupt fault sliding offsets and surrounding strain energy release in large earth- but by quantitatively
quakes as the system strives to keep up with the long-term relative plate motions. The characterizing the slip in very
underlying conceptual framework dates back to the elastic-rebound theory that
large earthquakes in regions that
emerged from the 1910 work of Reid (1) following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake
and the recognition of large-scale plate tectonics in the 1960s. Uncertainties in stress have previously ruptured in large
drop relative to absolute stress levels, variability in failure stress level, fluctuations in historic earthquakes, improved
fluid pressure distributions, nonlinear frictional instabilities, complexity of megathrust understanding of future
physical properties, and adjacent earthquake stress interactions (2) result in space and earthquake hazards is possible.
time irregularities of very large megathrust earthquake occurrence. Nonetheless, as
earthquake observations continue to accumulate, there has been substantial progress
in understanding megathrust earthquake hazard in the context of the tectonic strain
energy budget for the system; the so-called Reid renewal interval of strain reaccumu-
lation that must occur before another very large earthquake ruptures a given portion
Author contributions: T.L. and S.P.N. designed research;
of the plate boundary. performed research; and wrote the paper.
The focus here is on the subduction zone extending ~6,500 km along the western coast Reviewers: S. Barrientos, National Seismological Center,
of South America, where the Nazca plate is underthrusting the South American plate. Univ. of Chile; S. Beck, University Arizona; and L.R.S.,
The occurrence of 6 very large megathrust earthquakes (MW > 7.8) along this plate bound- Columbia University.
ary during the last 21 y (Fig. 1) has reinforced several fundamental observations that were The authors declare no competing interest.
made about great earthquake occurrence more than 50 y ago: Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.
This open access article is distributed under Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).
• T he rupture zones of major earthquakes along geometrically simple megathrusts 1
To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email:
tend to abut without significant overlap. [email protected].
• Very large earthquakes (MW ≥ 7.8) have a tendency to occur along portions of This article contains supporting information online at
https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.
the megathrust where comparable size earthquakes have not occurred for many 2216843119/-/DCSupplemental.
decades or even several centuries (3, 4). These regions are called seismic gaps. Published December 13, 2022.
PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 1 of 9

−90° −80° −70° −60° −50° Chile rupture, located on the down-dip portion of the megathrust,
which may not overlap shallow rupture in the 1877 event (5).
10° Cocos 10°
Nonetheless, it is clear that absolute segmentation does not exist,
Plate
and ruptures can comprise multiple adjacent portions of the
1906 Colombia Mw 8.5
boundary or not, an aspect that was not well recognized in the
1979 Mw 8.1
1958 Mw 7.6
early seismic gap discussions.
0° Carnegie Ridge 2016 Ecuador Mw 7.8 0° About 43 y ago, an additional key concept involving slip het-
1953 Mw 7.8
erogeneity in megathrust earthquakes developed from observa-
1959 Mw 7.5
tions of variations in maximum earthquake size and complexity
1960 Mw 7.6 - TE
of seismic waves radiated from very large earthquakes in different
−10°
1996 Mw 7.5 - TE?
1966 Mw 8.1 −10° subduction zones. Regions on the fault with large coseismic slip
1940 Mw 8.2
1974 Mw 7.6 and associated large volumetric strain release are identified as
2007 Mw 8.0
1996 Mw 7.7
1942 Mw 8.1
“asperities,” borrowing a contact mechanics term for the point
Nazca Plate 2001 Mw 8.4 contacts of microscale surface interactions (10–12). Patchy distri-
ge
2001 Mw 7.6
id
butions of large-slip regions during large earthquakes have been

aR
1868 Mw ~8.5
zc
2014 Iquique Mw 8.2

Na
−20° 2014 Iquique Mw 7.7 −20° affirmed by increasingly well-resolved finite-fault slip models, but
1877 Mw ~8.5
e
whether the underlying cause is material property variations (sed-

dg
2007 Mw 7.7
Ri
e
1995 Antofagasta Mw 8.0

qu
iments/rock contacts), boundary roughness (seamounts/horst and

ui
1966 Mw 7.7
Iq
graben structures), or hydrologic variations (pore fluids), or some

1922 Atacama Mw 8.6
combination of these factors, and their persistence over multiple
−30° −30°
2015 Illapel Mw 8.3
events is still an active area of research. A somewhat complemen-
Juan Fernandez
Ridge 1971 Illapel Mw 7.8 tary perspective of earthquake ruptures being controlled by por-
1985 Algarrobo Mw 8.0
tions of the fault that delimit sliding, or “barriers,” was also
2010 Maule Mw 8.8
advanced about this time (13). The connection between asperities,
1960 Mw 8.1
barriers, and gaps is intrinsically complex as heterogeneity of stress
−40° −40° and strain accumulation and variable frictional properties com-
1960 Valdivia Mw 9.5 plicate the notion of a fault “sticking,” which is intrinsic to the
2016 Quellón Mw 7.6 elastic-rebound theory (14). While some faults may actually lock
Chile Rise up uniformly over their entire seismogenic surface and rupture
Antarctic Plate
accordingly, others may have patchy locking and irregular failure
with mixed seismic and aseismic modes of boundary sliding, lead-
−50° −50° ing to distributions of event size on the same megathrust, partial
−90° −80° −70° −60° −50° rupture within a seismic gap, and variability in great earthquake
m size in a given region.
−8000 −4000 0 4000 8000
Elevation While the early conceptual models of seismic gaps and asperities
have guided many analyses of large earthquakes over the past
Fig. 1. The most recent large earthquake rupture zones (MW ≥ 7.5) along
each region of the west coast of South America where the Nazca plate is
decades, major advances over the past 30 y in understanding the
underthrusting the continent. Black dashed regions indicate aftershock zones complexity of frictional behavior, development of geodetic meth-
for older events (black labels); red contours indicate slip distribution for large ods for directly detecting interseismic strain accumulation in the
events in this century (red labels) from references in the supplement; purple
contours indicated slip contours (1, 10, and 20 m) for the 1960 Valdivia, Chile,
upper plate of subduction zones, and joint seismic–geodetic–tsu-
event. nami analyses of finite-fault slip distributions have provided a
more physical context for understanding heterogeneity of slip on
faults. The inferred “patchiness” of megathrust geodetic locking
The first point is readily evident in the nearly continuous dis- and large event slip irregularity give a better understanding of why
tribution of the most recent large earthquake rupture zones along large event ruptures tend not to overlap with recent events and
the entire boundary depicted in Fig. 1. The large events since 2000 why some events can rupture regions that at other times fail in
are shown with coseismic slip contours that emphasize the non- several discrete events. Stress shadowing along dip and along strike
uniform slip along dip and along strike of the subduction zone. can result in slip deficit before and after large events in regions
Most of the Nazca–South America plate boundary has produced that are not mechanically coupled (15).
repeated large earthquakes along the full distribution of ruptures We draw on the updated perspectives of seismic gaps, persistent
shown in Fig. 1. The second point above is demonstrated by con- asperities, and geodetic locking to evaluate the current state of
sidering the estimated along-strike extent of large historic earth- seismic hazard for very large earthquakes along the Nazca–South
quakes (MW ≥ ~7.5) along the South American subduction zone American megathrust. Our focus is on very large event hazards
shown in Fig. 2. It is important to note that there are examples (MW ≥ 7.8). These very large events release the majority of accu-
where recent very large earthquakes have ruptured smaller areas mulated tectonic strain over large enough portions of the plate
than in prior events (this is notable for the 2016 Ecuador earth- boundary (~120 km × 40 km) for Reid renewal models to be
quake (Fig. 2A), which reruptured the 1942 zone but only rup- applicable. Smaller ruptures can have adjacent rupture patches
tured the southern portion of the 1906 zone, and the 2001 that may not involve rerupture of a common megathrust region
southern Peru event (Fig. 2B), which ruptured about 2/3 of the making them more ambiguous to interpret. The identification of
length of the 1868 event, as well as examples where earthquakes seismic gaps for very large events along the South American sub-
have ruptured areas larger than in prior events (the 2010 Maule, duction zone in the 1970s (16) helped to focus earthquake research
Chile, earthquake (Fig. 2C) ruptured the 1928 zone plus most of and monitoring activities during the following decades. While
the 1835 zone). One has to be cautious about inferring overlap efforts to assess the relative probability of major ruptures in iden-
of two-dimensional ruptures, as for the case of the 2007 northern tified seismic gaps became controversial (17–23), being
2 of 9 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 pnas.org
A Ecuador-Colombia
1900 1906
1942 1958
2000 1979
2016
-2° 0° 2° 4° 6°
Latitude
SE B Peru NW
1500
1582 1513 1586
1600 1619
1604 1664
1687 1687 1678
1700 1715 1725
1746 1759
1784
1800 1833 1806
1868 1828
1900 1913
1942 1940 1953
1974 1960
1996 1966 1959
2000 2001 1996
2007
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Distance along trench (km)
C Central - Northern Chile

1500
1570 1575
1600
1657 1647 1615
1700 1730
1768
1751 1796
1800 1835 1822 1819 1786
1851 1873 1849 1851 1868
1880 1859
1900 1914 1906 1918 1877
1960 1928 1922

1971
1943 1946 1966
2000 1985 1983 1995
2010 2015 2007 2014
-38° -36° -34° -32° -30° -28° -26° -24° -22° -20° -18°
Latitude
D Southern Chile
1500
1575
1600
1700 1737
1800
1837
1900
2000 1960
2016
-48° -46° -44° -42° -40° -38°
Latitude
Fig. 2. Along–plate boundary rupture distributions for historic large earthquakes (M ≥ ~7.5) in (A) Ecuador–Colombia, (B) Peru (6), (C) central to northern Chile
(7–9), and (D) southern Chile (7, 8). Bolder lines represent Breakthrough Ruptures that likely span the entire width of the plate boundary.
handicapped by consideration of smaller events and the limited Deployment of geodetic and seismic monitoring instruments in
information about very large historic earthquakes, almost all very many of the early identified seismic gaps throughout the circum-Pa-
large megathrust earthquakes during the past 50 y have, in fact, cific region has enhanced the resolution of subsequent faulting
been located along subduction zone segments where multiple-dec- processes, revealing heterogeneous coseismic slip on the megathrust
ade intervals of prior strain accumulation had occurred (24). Only fault. New technologies, including global and regional broadband
a handful of recent very large earthquakes have ruptured localized seismograph networks, space-based geodesy (GNSS), satellite inter-
areas where a previous comparable or much larger earthquake was ferometry (InSAR), seafloor geodesy (GNSS-a, ocean bottom pres-
seismically observed, so quantitative comparisons of successive sure sensors), seafloor drill hole facilities, and potential field (gravity)
dynamic ruptures remain very limited. measurements, have dramatically improved the ability to quantify

long-term strain accumulation and relaxation, as well as short-term 2016 Ecuador. The 16 April 2016 M W 7.8 Pedernales,
coseismic processes, along plate boundaries. Ecuador, earthquake (Figs. 1, 2A, and 3A) ruptured the
down-dip portion of the Colombia/Ecuador seismogenic
Results zone along prior ruptures in 1906 (MW 8.6) and 1942 (MW
7.8). Large events to the northeast in 1958 and 1979 fill
The following sections consider the fundamental observations in most of the 1906 rupture length, demonstrating that
concerning the abutting of rupture zones and time-dependent great ruptures can intermingle with multiple shorter but
recurrence behavior along the South American plate boundary in still very large events (25). The source region had previously
the light of recent great earthquakes and the 50 y of subsequent been accumulating moderate slip deficit based on geodetic
research advances since the initial seismic gap and asperity papers measurements (26). Comparison of seismic waveforms and
were published. We discuss the spatial and temporal patterns of magnitudes demonstrate that the 2016 and 1942 events have
great earthquake ruptures in the context of updated physical mod- similar surface wave magnitudes (M S 7.5), overlapping rupture
els of the megathrust and identify segments of the plate boundary areas, and an overlapping large-slip patch (Fig. 3A) but not
that appear to have elevated seismic hazard of very large earth- identical teleseismic waveforms—indicating that 2016 was
quakes within the coming decades. Improved understanding of a quasirepeat of 1942 (27). This is further discussed in the
very large earthquakes on plate boundaries is emerging from obser- Supplement. A distribution of slip-weakening patches along
vations of many global events (24), but key insights can be cap- strike appears to be characteristic of this region.
tured from consideration of the six recent events along the South
American subduction zone. Major observations and lessons 2007 Pisco, Peru. The 15 August 2007 (MW 8.0) Pisco, Peru,
learned from these events are summarized below. Detailed discus- earthquake produced substantial shaking damage and a large
sion and citations for each event are presented in the Supplement. tsunami on the southern Paracas Peninsula (Figs. 1, 2B, and
Fig. 3. Very large earthquake rupture zone and prior estimates of geodetic plate boundary coupling (darkest reds correspond to 100% slip deficit relative to
plate motion) for (A) the 2016 Ecuador earthquake and 1906, 1942, 1958, and 1979 ruptures (28); (B) the Southern Peru region with the 2007 Pisco and 2001
Arequipa earthquakes (29); (C) the 2014 Iquique, Chile, zone, with 1868 Peru to the north and 1877 Chile to the south (9); (D) the 1922 Atacama event region with
the 1995 Antofagasta earthquake to the north (30); (E) the 2015 Illapel earthquake (9); and (F) the 2010 Maule, Chile, earthquake (9).
3B). The event is among a sequence of great earthquakes in concentrations of ~3-m coseismic slip below the coast and a large
Central Peru that progressively reruptured the larger 1687 and patch with up to ~10-m slip at shallow depths (46–48). Studies
1746 zones (Fig. 2B) in 1940 (MW 8.2), 1942 (MW 8.1), 1966 with the best offshore resolution are consistent with the large-
(MW 8.1), 1974 (MW 7.6), and 2007 (MW 8.0) (31). Geodetic slip patch having extended up-dip to near the trench. Geodetic
slip deficit had been observed prior to the 2007 rupture (29). measurements prior to the event indicate that there was strong
The seismic, geodetic, and tsunami data for this event reveal that megathrust coupling in the region of large slip, particularly south
the rupture involved two or more large-slip patches straddling of 31°S, although resolution of coupling out to the trench is
the peninsula with about a 60-s lag time between the primary very low (49, 50), and afterslip expanded both northward and
subevents (32). The discrete triggering of separated large-slip southward from the large-slip zone (51). The prior 1943 MW 7.9
patches and adjacent up-dip and along-strike afterslip (33) are event has a single pulse of moment release at depths <35 km but
consistent with the asperity model. has a smaller seismic moment estimate and simpler waveforms
that indicate that it did not rupture the shallow portion of the
2001 Southern Peru. The 23 June 2001 MW 8.4 Arequipa (or megathrust (50). Local and far-field tsunami heights for the 2015
Camaná), Peru, earthquake and its magnitude 7.6 aftershock event are significantly higher than those in 1943. Overall, the 2015
on 7 July 2001 to the southeast reruptured the northern two- event is not a simple repeat of the 1943 event and likely had much
thirds of the 1868 seismic gap (Figs. 1, 2B, and 3B). Earthquake more slip at shallow depth (45).
intensity and tsunami run-up reports indicate that great events
in 1604 and 1868 were larger than those in the overlapping 2010 Maule, Chile. The 27 February 2010 Maule (MW 8.8)
1582, 1784, and 2001 earthquakes (Fig. 2B) (31,34). Based on earthquake ruptured the plate boundary offshore of central Chile
analysis of seismic, geodetic, and tsunami data, the earthquake between 34°S and 38.5°S (Figs. 1–3F). The coseismic slip of this
broke two spatially offset asperities: the first in the northwest of event has been determined by analysis of seismic, geodetic, and
the rupture zone and the second, centrally located asperity being tsunami observations. Patchy coseismic slip is distributed over a
much larger and releasing most of the total seismic moment region 460 km long and 100 km wide between the depths of 15
(29, 32, 35). Rupture appears to have extended across the and 40 km. Two large-slip asperity regions are resolved along the
megathrust to near the trench. megathrust: one extending from 34°S to 36°S (with up to 20-m
slip) and the other from 37°S to 38°S (with up to 10-m slip).
2014 Iquique, Chile. The 1 April 2014 MW 8.1 Iquique, Chile, Joint inversions with accurately modeled tsunami observations
earthquake and its large MW 7.7 aftershock on 3 April 2014 find that the large-slip patches include slip of 5 to 8 m all the
to the south ruptured a rather compact area of the northern way to the trench (52, 53). Geodetic measurements had resolved
Chile central megathrust from 19.3°S to 20.7°S (Figs. 1, 2C, and accumulating slip deficit prior to the rupture along the entire
3C). The rupture was preceded by months of slowly migrating rupture area, with moderate reduction near 35°S (54), but the
foreshock activity located up-dip of the eventual mainshock, patchy slip distribution only loosely conforms to the variable
indicating along-dip variation in frictional properties of the locking distribution (55). Afterslip extends along the length
megathrust (36, 37). The large-slip zone (~2 to 7 m) for the of the rupture primarily down-dip and between the two large
2014 mainshock extends only about 70 km along strike and coseismic slip patches (56). Conventional seismic gap ideas with
50 km along dip, with finite-slip models being well resolved strong segmentation do not characterize this region well, but the
by seismic, geodetic, and tsunami observations (38, 39). The Reid strain renewal concept in conjunction with a distribution of
concentrated mainshock slip, with adjacent down-dip slow persistent asperities along the megathrust reconciles the historical
deformation and afterslip, is consistent with the asperity model, behavior.
and several prior historical earthquakes have occurred in this
region of northernmost Chile over the past few centuries (Fig. Discussion
2C), so persistence of localized velocity-weakening properties is
viable. The event struck in an area of large slip deficit inferred The quantification of interseismic, coseismic, and postseismic
from geodesy that extends along northern Chile from 18°S to deformation for the six very large earthquakes along the South
25°S, with a low-coupling zone near 21°S (40). Many estimates American subduction zone in the past 21 y described above pro-
of the 1877 rupture extent span this region (41, 42), so early vides insight into updated conceptual/observational seismic gap
interpretations viewed the 2014 event as a partial rupture of the and asperity models. The intuitive concept of strain accumulation
1877 zone akin to the events along Ecuador–Colombia. However, and release in the Reid renewal cycle continues to underlie validity
based on detailed reinterpretation of intensity observations for of the seismic gap idea for very large earthquake occurrence, but
1877, the 2014 Iquique event appears to have ruptured within strict segmentation of the plate boundary is not defined by recent
the megathrust region south of Arica and north of Iquique that rupture zones. Early estimates of the lateral extent of large ruptures
lies between large-slip regions of the great 1868 Peru and 1877 relied heavily on aftershock zones as well as MMI VIII damage
Chile earthquakes (43) (Fig. 3C). and tsunami reports. Recent, well-documented earthquakes help
to calibrate these older descriptions (7). Coseismic slip heteroge-
2015 Illapel, Chile. The 16 September 2015 MW 8.3 Illapel, neity and nonuniform slip deficit accumulation from seismic and
Chile, earthquake ruptured ~170 km along the plate boundary geodetic inversions continue to be well accounted for by the asper-
megathrust in central Chile from 30°S to 31.8°S (Figs. 1 and 3E). ity model, but evaluating persistence of these regions of slip-weak-
This event struck in the same region as events in 1943, 1880, and ening properties is complicated by repeated very large earthquakes
1730 (Figs. 2C and 3E) (18, 44). The 2015 Illapel earthquake is of having variable slip both along dip and along strike. Representations
particular note because rapid seismic magnitude estimation of the of the asperity model have progressively added complexity to
event prompted a tsunami warning and evacuation notifications reflect along-dip variations and complexity of individual sequences
within 8 to 11 min of the origin time, resulting in large-scale (Fig. 4) (24, 57–59), and such models have been invoked in many
evacuation along the Chile coast (45). Seismic, geodetic, and earthquake studies. Along-dip variations are now recognized as
tsunami waveform analyses of the 2015 Illapel earthquake indicate particularly important, with the megathrust shallower than 15 km

(Domain A) potentially having strain accumulation that results ruptures that span the entire width of the plate interface (Domains
in tsunami earthquakes or enhances ruptures that initiate deeper. A+B+C), termed “Breakthrough Ruptures” (61), are proposed to
Between 15 and 35 km (Domain B), the megathrust has discrete “reset” the seismic cycle and are distinct from those events confined
slip-weakening patches that are patchy and surrounded by to deeper portions of the interface (Domain B or C only). Along
slip-strengthening zones; the larger patches fail in very large earth- the South American plate boundary, one can identify multiple
quakes and may cascade to produce great earthquakes that span Breakthrough Ruptures, including the 1575 and 1960 S. Chile,
longer stretches of the boundary. Domain C extends from 35 to 1730 Valparaíso, 1819/1922 Atacama, 1877 N. Chile, 1604/1868
50 km and has reduced size asperities and increasing aseismic S. Peru, 1746 Central Peru, and 1906 Colombia–Ecuador events.
component, but damaging earthquakes can still result as they tend From two to four events have reruptured most of the same regions
to be below the coast. This region also produces stronger short-pe- in smaller, nonoverlapping events, giving rise to the space–time
riod radiation during very large earthquakes. irregularity evident in Fig. 2 but still allowing regions of significant
Bathymetric features on the subducting plate, notably the Chile strain accumulation and potential for future events to be
Rise, Challenger Fracture Zone, Juan Fernandez Ridge, Nazca identified.
Ridge, Medaña Fracture Zone, and Carnegie Ridge, appear to act If we view seismic gaps in areas with prior very large earth-
as persistent barriers to rupture along South America, defining quakes and/or current day slip deficit accumulation as regions
major megathrust segments (3, 60). Finer-scale segmentation is with patchy asperities that must accumulate sufficient stress
controlled by asperity distributions on the megathrust, but only a and strain to fail, one can generally infer relative seismic
few examples (1942/2016 Ecuador and 1943/2015 Illapel) of hazard based on historical and geodetic observations.
repeated ruptures with seismic recordings are available to evaluate Essentially, the updated asperity representation shown in Fig.
the persistence of asperities through the seismic cycle. Megathrust 4 captures the essence of the asperity, seismic gap, and
A
Coast Trench
0
Upper t fault
megathrus
interplate
Depth Below
Oceanic
Sea Level, km
Crust
Plate A
25 Moho B Tsunami Earthquakes Plate
Mantle Large Slip Earthquakes With Low Short-Period
C With Low Short-Period Energy/Stable Sliding
Energy
50 D Modest Slip Earthquake
With, High Short-Period Energy
Slow Slip, LFEs,
Seismic Tremor
75
200 150 100 50 0 -50
Distance From Trench, km
B Accretionary Wedge
h
Trenc Overriding Plate
Aseismic
mi EQ
suna
S low T
Seismic
Conditionally
Domain A Stable
Domain B Slow slip/Tremor
Domain C
Domain D
Fig. 4. An updated representation of the asperity model (24). (A) Schematic cross-section indicating four depth-varying domains of megathrust rupture
characteristics: A – near-trench domain where tsunami earthquakes or anelastic deformation and stable sliding occur; B – central megathrust domain where
large slip occurs with minor short-period seismic radiation; C – down-dip domain where moderate slip occurs with significant coherent short-period seismic
radiation; D – transitional domain, only present in some areas, typically with a young subducting plate, where slow slip events, low-frequency earthquakes, and
seismic tremor can occur. At yet greater depths, the megathrust slides stably or with episodic slow slip or plastic deformation that does not generate earthquakes.
(B) Cutaway schematic characterization of the megathrust frictional environment related to Domains A, B, C, and D defined in (A). Regions of unstable frictional
sliding (asperities) are red regions labeled “seismic.” Regions of aseismic stable or episodic slow sliding are white regions labeled “aseismic.” Orange areas are
conditional stability regions, which displace aseismically except when accelerated by failure of adjacent seismic patches. Domain A is at shallow depth where low-
rigidity sediments and pore fluids cause very slow rupture expansion even if large displacements occur in tsunami earthquakes. Domain B has large, relatively
uniform regions of stable sliding that can have large slip but generate modest amounts of short-period radiation upon failure. Domain C has patchy, smaller-scale
regions of stable sliding surrounded by conditionally stable areas. When these areas fail, coherent short-period radiation is produced. Small, isolated patches
may behave as repeaters when quasistatic sliding of surrounding regions regularly load them to failure. Domain D is dominated by aseismic sliding, but many
small unstable patches can rupture in seismic tremor when slow slip events occur.
frictional heterogeneity perspectives, with the behavior of the • Northern Chile: Vallenar/Atacama (~26 to 29.5°S)
larger asperities being emphasized here. With the 2016 This region last ruptured in the great Mw 8.6 Atacama earthquake
Ecuador, 2007 and 2001 Peru, and the 2010 Maule events of 10 November 1922 and is bounded to the north by the 1995 MW
all involving coseismic rupture of at least two large asperities, 8.0 Antofagasta rupture and to the south by the 2015 Illapel MW 8.3
and the 2001 Peru and 2014 Iquique, Chile, events having earthquake (Figs. 1, 2C, and 3D). The northern region of the 1922
very large aftershocks along strike, the patchy nature of the rupture zone, from 26°S to 27°S, has experienced relatively frequent
megathrust asperity distribution has been clearly manifested large ruptures, in 1796 (M ~ 7.5), 1819 (M ~ 8.5), 1859 (M ~ 7.5),
in the recent South American events. The relatively uniform 1918 (M ~ 7 to 7.5), 1922, 1946, and 1983 (MW 7.6), while the
but modulated geodetic coupling on the megathrust along southern region from 27°S to 29.5°S appears to have ruptured only
the South America coastline, with patchy ruptures and after- in 1819 and 1922 (7,8,64) (Fig. 2C). The 1922 event likely exhibited
slip distributions for the recent very large events, provides bilateral rupture (65) and a complex slip distribution involving the
further support for this conceptual model. However, time rupture of three separate asperities, seemingly consistent with eyewit-
predictability remains elusive given the experience that some ness accounts (44). The prior rupture in 1819 involved a sequence of
events involve cascades of several asperities failing together three events on April 3, 4, and 11 (8). The very large earthquake pairs
to make a great earthquake, some events likely have incom- in 1796/1819 and 1918/1922 have been suggested to represent the
plete stress release due to lateral buttressing by adjacent primary plate boundary ruptures for the Vallenar/Atacama segment,
regions that do not fail, and shallow megathrust failures may indicating a repeat time for this segment of the Chilean subduction
or may not accompany deeper megathrust failures. The recent zones of on the order of a century. Geodetic surveys provide a clear
events demonstrate this full range of behavior. Anticipating mapping of heterogeneous interseismic coupling along the 1922 rup-
the size and timing of future events is thus highly uncertain, ture zone with high coupling at both shallow (8 to 15 km) and inter-
but as for the recent events, one can generally anticipate where mediate (15 to 35 km) depths (30, 49, 63) (Fig. 3D). The southern
large events are likely to occur. boundary of the 1922 rupture, near La Serena (30°S), is coincident
With these perspectives in mind, we identify four regions of with the intersection of the Challenger Fracture Zone, and the local
particular interest for future large earthquake occurrence. low geodetic coupling is proposed to act as a persistent barrier between
great earthquake rupture in the Atacama and south-central Chile
• Ecuador/Colombia: Esmeraldas (~1°N) segments (66). For an estimated slip deficit rate of ~50 mm/y (63),
The region just north of the 2016 MW 7.8 Ecuador rupture ~5 m of slip may have accumulated during the last 100 y comparable
(Figs. 1, 2A, and 3A) last ruptured with a comparable size event with an MW 8.3 earthquake.
in 1958 (MW 7.6). Viewing the deeper megathrust region as Looking forward, sustained operation or new deployment of
having several large asperities distributed along strike, the 2016 dense networks of seismic, onshore and offshore geodetic, and
failure has increased driving stress on the 1958 zone, which tsunami sensors is essential to making sufficient observations of
already has 64 y of possible strain accumulation, exceeding that the deformation process in these four regions that will inevitably
between the 1906 and 1958 events. Aftershock activity for the culminate in future very large earthquakes. Large-scale space–time
2016 event has concentrated offshore and along the southwest- patterns of regional seismicity may help to identify regions
ern portion of the 1958 zone. Localized strong geodetic cou- approaching their limiting strain accumulation (61, 67). Of
pling in the 1958 rupture zone adds to the earthquake potential course, large events can also occur in regions where strain accu-
in this region. mulation is thought to be modest; the 2016 MW 7.6 earthquake
• Southeasternmost Peru: Arica (~18 to 19°S) in the 1960 rupture zone (Fig. 2D) is one such example. Imprecise
The 1604 and 1868 MMI VIII isoseismal zones both extend knowledge of strain release in historical events limits the ability
farther southeast toward Arica, Chile, than the 2001 rupture to anticipate such behavior. But this does not eliminate the value
(Figs. 1, 2B, and 3B), indicating that the southeasternmost por- of concentrating observational effort on regions that likely will
tion of the Peru plate boundary has remained unbroken for 154 experience future very large events, given the success that this
y (34, 62). Geodetic slip deficit accumulation in the area is high strategy has achieved for recent South American earthquakes.
(~63 mm/y) indicating that as much as ~10 m of slip may have
accumulated in the region since 1868, with potential seismic Materials and Methods
moment equivalent to an MW 8.4 event. It is unclear why the Earthquake rupture source dimensions and, for recent events, coseismic slip dis-
2001 event failed to rupture into this region, but there is evidence tributions for ruptures along the South American subduction zone were extracted
for prior smaller events that ruptured just this region in 1833 and from the literature. This information is incorporated into Figs. 1 and 2, which
1715 (Fig. 2B). document the very large earthquake history dating back to 1500. The rupture
• Northern Chile: Loa (~21 to 23°S) lengths for historic events are largely based on documented ground shaking
The Loa segment between Iquique and Antofagasta corresponds and damage patterns, with information being available for very large events for
regional and far-field tsunami inundations. The history of events prior to 1900 is
to the large-slip region of the great 1877 Arica earthquake based
nonuniform along the coast over the past 500 y as it depends on European settle-
on intensity reports (41, 43) and is bounded to the north by the
ments and archives. In limited regions, sedimentological observations document
2014 MW 8.2 Iquique earthquake and to the south by the 1995 great events over several millennia. Details of many of the earthquakes extracted
MW 8.0 Antofagasta rupture (Figs. 1, 2C, and 3C). The Loa seg- from geological, seismological, geodetic, and tsunami observations are discussed
ment exhibits high geodetic coupling along its entire length (Fig. and cited in the supplement, with a focus on six recent large events that have been
3C), and the area between 20° and 21°S has had little to no seismic particularly well studied. These observations of the history of large earthquakes
activity during the last century (39). The rate of slip deficit accu- along the subduction zone are considered in the context of seismic gap and
mulation in the area (~55 mm/y) (63) indicates that as much as seismic asperity conceptual models to understand the variation in earthquake
~8 m of slip has accumulated in the region since 1877, with ruptures along localized subduction zone segments and to highlight regions with
potential seismic moment equivalent to an MW 8.4 event. Rupture large strain accumulation where future great earthquakes are likely to occur and
of the shallow megathrust up-dip of the 2007 rupture zone as part where geophysical instrumentation can be deployed to capture the later stages
of this event is viable. of the earthquake cycle culminating in the large events to come.

Data, Materials, and Software Availability. All study data are included in the helpful reviews. Thorne Lay’s research on earthquake processes is supported by
article and/or SI Appendix. No new data were generated in this study. the National Science Foundation grant EAR1802364.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Emily Brodsky for discussions of Chilean large Author affiliations: aDepartment of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California
earthquake hazard. Sergio Barrientos, Susan Beck, and Lynn Sykes provided Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
1. H. F. Reid, The mechanics of the earthquake, the California earthquake of April 18, 1906. Report of 32. T. Lay, C. J. Ammon, A. R. Hutko, H. Kanamori, Effects of kinematic constraints on teleseismic finite-
the State Investigation Commission, Vol. 2 (Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D. C., source rupture inversions: Great Peruvian earthquakes of 23 June 2001 and 15 August 2007. Bull.
1910). Seism. Soc. Am. 100, 969–994 (2010), 10.1785/0120090274.
2. D. Melnick et al., The super-interseismic phase of the megathrust earthquake cycle in Chile. 33. H. Perfettini et al., Seismic and aseismic slip on the Central Peru megathrust. Nature 465, 78–81
Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 784–791 (2017), 10.1002/2016GL071845. (2010), 10.1038/nature09062.
3. L. R. Sykes, Aftershock zones of great earthquakes, seismicity gaps, and earthquake prediction for 34. M. K. Giovanni, S. L. Beck, L. Wagner, The June 23, 2001 Peru earthquake and the Southern Peru
Alaska and the Aleutians. J. Geophys. Res. 76, 8021–8041 (1971). subduction zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 14-1–14-4 (2002), 10.1029/2002GL015774.
4. J. A. Kelleher, L. R. Sykes, J. Oliver, Possible criteria for predicting earthquake locations and their 35. C. Jiménez, C. Carbonel, J. C. Villegas-Lanza, Seismic source of the earthquake of Camana Peru 2001
applications to major plate boundaries of the Pacific and the Caribbean. J. Geophys. Res. 78, (MW 8.2) from joint inversion of geodetic and tsunami data. Pure Appl. Geophys. 178, 4763–4775
2547–2585 (1973). (2021), 10.1007/s00024-020-02616-8.
5. B. Schurr et al., The 2007 M7.7 Tocopilla northern Chile earthquake sequence: Implications for 36. S. Ruiz et al., Intense foreshocks and a slow slip event preceded the 2014 Iquique MW 8.1
along-strike and downdip rupture segmentation and megathrust frictional behavior. J. Geophys. earthquake. Science 345, 1165–1169 (2014), 10.1126/science.1256074.
Res. 117, B05305 (2012), 10.1029/2011JB009030. 37. B. Schurr et al., Gradual unlocking of plate boundary controlled initiation of the 2014 Iquique
6. J. C. Villegas-Lanza et al., Nocquet, Active tectonics of Peru: Heterogeneous interseismic earthquake. Nature 512, 299–302 (2014), 10.1038/nature13681.
coupling along the Nazca megathrust, rigid motion of the Peruvian Sliver, and Subandean 38. Y. Bai, K. F. Cheung, Y. Yamazaki, T. Lay, L. Ye, Tsunami surges around the Hawaiian Islands from
shortening accommodation. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 121, 7371–7394 (2016), the 1 April 2014 North Chile MW 8.1 earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 8512–8521 (2014),
10.1002/2016JB013080. 10.1002/2014GL061686.
7. S. Ruiz, R. Madariaga, Historical and recent large megathrust earthquakes in Chile. Tectonophysics 39. G. P. Hayes et al., Continuing megathrust earthquake potential in Chile after the 2014 Iquique
733, 37–56 (2018), 10.1016/j.tecto.2018.01.015. earthquake. Nature 512, 295–298 (2014), 10.1038/nature13677.
8. C. Lomnitz, C., Major earthquakes of Chile: A historical survey, 1535–1960. Seism. Res. Lett. 75, 40. F. Hoffmann et al., Characterizing afterslip and ground displacement rate increase following the
368–378 (2004), 10.1785/gssrl.75.3.368. 2014 Iquique-Pisagua MW 8.1 earthquake, Northern Chile. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 123,
9. M. Métois, C. Vigny, A. Socquet, Interseismic coupling, megathrust earthquakes and seismic 4171–4192 (2018), 10.1002/2017JB014970.
swarms along the Chilean subduction zone (38°-18°S). Pure Appl. Geophys. 1783, 1431–1449 41. E. Kausel, Los terremotos de Agosto de 1868 y Mayo de 1877 que afectaron el sur del Perú y norte
(2016). de Chile. Boletín de la Academia Chilena de Ciencias 3, 8–13 (1986).
10. T. Lay, H. Kanamori, Earthquake doublets in the Solomon Islands. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 21, 42. D. Comte, M. Pardo, Reappraisal of great historical earthquakes in the Northern Chile and Southern
283–304 (1980). Peru seismic gaps. Nat. Haz. 4, 23–44 (1991).
11. T. Lay, H. Kanamori, ”An asperity model of large earthquake sequences” in Earthquake Prediction – An 43. C. Vigny, E. Klein, The 1877 megathrust earthquake of North Chile two times smaller than
International Review, D. W. Simpson, P. G. Richards, Eds. (Maurice Ewing Series, 4, AGU, Washington thought? A review of ancient articles. J. S. Amer. Earth Sci. 117, 103878 (2022), 10.1016/j.
D.C., 1981), (4), pp. 579–592. jsames.2022.103878.
12. T. Lay, H. Kanamori, L. Ruff, The asperity model and the nature of large subduction zone 44. S. Beck, S. Barrientos, E. Kausel, M. Reyes, Source characteristics of historic earthquakes along the
earthquakes. Earthquake Pred. Res. 1, 3–71 (1982). central Chile subduction zone. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 11, 115–129 (1998).
13. K. Aki, Characteristics of barriers on an earthquake fault. J. Geophys. Res. 84, 6140–6148 45. L. Ye, T. Lay, H. Kanamori, K. D. Koper, Rapidly estimated seismic source parameters for the 16
(1979). September 2015 Illapel Chile MW 8.3 earthquake. Pure Appl. Geophys. 173, 321–332 (2016),
14. C. H. Scholz, Earthquakes and friction laws. Nature 391, 37–42 (1998), 10.1038/34097. 10.1007/s00024-015-1202-y.
15. M. W. Herman, K. P. Furlong, R. Govers, The accumulation of slip deficit in subduction zones in 46. L. Li, T. Lay, K. F. Cheung, L. Ye, Joint modeling of teleseismic and tsunami wave observations to
the absence of mechanical coupling: Implications for the behavior of megathrust earthquakes. constrain the 16 September 2015 Illapel, Chile, MW 8.3 earthquake rupture process. Geophys. Res.
J. Geophys. Res. 123, 8260–8278 (2018), 10.1029/2018JB016336. Lett. 43, 4303–4312 (2016), 10.1002/2016GL068674.
16. J. A. Kelleher, Rupture zones of large South American earthquakes and some predictions. J. 47. M. W. Herman et al., Integrated geophysical characteristics of the 2015 Illapel, Chile, earthquake.
Geophys. Res. 77, 2087–2103 (1972). J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 122, 4691–4711 (2017), 10.1002/2016JB013617.
17. W. R. McCann, S. P. Nishenko, L. R. Sykes, J. Krause, Seismic gaps and plate tectonics: Seismic 48. G. Easton et al., Complex rupture of the 2015 MW 8.3 Illapel earthquake and prehistoric
potential for major boundaries. Pure Appl. Geophys. 117, 1082–1147 (1979), 10.1007/ events in the Central Chile tsunami gap. Seis. Res. Lett. 93, 1479–1496 (2022),
BF00876211. 10.1785/0220210283.
18. S. P. Nishenko, Seismic potential for large and great interplate earthquakes along the Chilean 49. M. Métois, C. Vigny, A. Socquet, Interseismic coupling, megathrust earthquakes and seismic
and southern Peruvian margins of South America: A quantitative reappraisal. J. Geophys. Res. 90, swarms along the Chilean subduction zone (38°-18°S). Pure Appl. Geophys. 1783, 1431–1449
3589–3615 (1985), 10.1029/JB090iB05p03589. (2016).
19. S. P. Nishenko, Circum-Pacific seismic potential: 1989–1999. Pure Appl. Geophys. 135, 169–259 (1991). 50. F. Tilmann et al., The 2015 Illapel earthquake, central Chile: A type case for a characteristic
20. Y. Y. Kagan, D. D. Jackson, Seismic gap hypothesis: Ten years after. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 21419– earthquake? Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 574–583 (2016), 10.1002/2015GL066963.
21431 (1991). 51. H. Huang, W. Xu, L. Meng, R. Burgmann, J. C. Baez, Early aftershocks and afterslip surrounding
21. S. P. Nishenko, L. R. Sykes, Comment on “Seismic gap hypothesis: Ten years after” by Y. Y. Kagan and the 2015 MW 8.4 Illapel rupture. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 457, 282–291 (2017), 10.1016/j.
D. D. Jackson. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 9909–9916 (1993). epsl.2016.09.055.
22. Y. Y. Kagan, D. D. Jackson, New seismic gap hypothesis: Five years after. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 52. H. Yue et al., Localized fault slip to the trench in the 2010 Maule, Chile MW 8.8
3943–3960 (1995). earthquake from joint inversion of high-rate GPS, teleseismic body waves, InSAR,
23. Y. Y. Kagan, D. D. Jackson, R. J. Geller, Characteristic earthquake model, 1884–2011, R.I.P., opinion. campaign GPS, and tsunami observations. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 7786–7804 (2014),
Seism. Res. Lett. 83, 951–953 (2012). 10.1002/2014JB011340.
24. T. Lay, The surge of great earthquakes from 2004 to 2014. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 409, 133–146 53. F. Romano et al., Benchmarking the optimal time alignment of tsunami waveforms in nonlinear
(2015). joint inversions for the MW 8.8 2010 Maule (Chile) earthquake. Front. Earth Sci. 8, 585429 (2020),
25. H. Kanamori, K. C. McNally, Variable rupture mode of the subduction zone along the Ecuador- 10.3389/feart.2020.585429.
Colombia coast. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 72, 1241–1253 (1982). 54. M. Métois, A. Socquet, C. Vigny, Interseismic coupling, segmentation and mechanical
26. M. Chlieh et al., Distribution of discrete seismic asperities and aseismic slip along the Ecuadorian behavior of the central Chile subduction zone. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B03406 (2012),
megathrust. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 400, 292–301 (2014), 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.05.027. 10.1029/2011JB008736.
27. L. Ye et al., The 16 April 2016, MW 7.8 (MS 7.5) ecuador earthquake: A quasi-repeater of the 1942 55. S. Lorito et al., Limited overlap between the seismic gap and coseismic slip of the great 2010 Chile
MS 7.5 earthquake and partial re-rupture of the 1906 MS 8.6 Colombia-Ecuador earthquake. Earth earthquake. Nat. Geosci. 4, 173–177 (2011), 10.1038/ngeo1073.
Planet. Sci. Lett. 454, 248–258 (2016), 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.006. 56. E. Klein, L. Fleitout, C. Vigny, J. D. Garaud, Afterslip and viscoelastic relaxation model inferred rom
28. P. A. Mothes et al., Monitoring the earthquake cycle in the northern Andes from the Ecuadorian cGPS the large-scale post-seismic deformation following the 2010 MW 8.8 Maule earthquake (Chile).
network. Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 534–541 (2018), 10.1785/0220170243. Geophys. J. Int. 205, 1455–1472 (2016), 10.1093/gji/ggw086.
29. M. Chlieh et al., Interseismic coupling and seismic potential along the Central Andes subduction 57. J. F. Pacheco, L. R. Sykes, C. H. Scholz, Nature of seismic coupling along simple plate boundaries of
zone. J. Geophys. Res. 116, B12405 (2011), 10.1029/2010JB008166. the subduction type. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 14133–14159 (1993).
30. V. Yanez-Cuadra et al., Interplate coupling and seismic potential in the Atacama Seismic Gap 58. N. Uchida, T. Matsuzawa, Coupling coefficient, hierarchical structure, and earthquake cycle for the
(Chile): Dismissing a rigid Andean sliver. Geophy. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL098257 (2022), source area of the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake inferred from small repeating
10.1029/2022GL098257. earthquake data. Earth Planets. Space 63, 675–679 (2011).
31. L. Dorbath, A. Cisternas, C. Dorbath, Assessment of the size of large and great historical earthquakes 59. T. Lay et al., Depth-varying rupture properties of subduction megathrust faults. J. Geophys. Res. 117,
in Peru. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 80, 551–576 (1990), 10.1785/BSSA0800030551. B04311 (2012), 10.1029/2011JB009133.
60. J. A. Kelleher, W. R. McCann, Buoyant zones, great earthquakes, and unstable boundaries of 64. D. Comte et al., Seismicity an stress distribution in the Copiapo, northern Chile Subduction zone
subduction. J. Geophys. Res. 81, 4885–4908 (1976). using combined on- and off-shore seismic observations. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 132, 197–217
61. N. Wetzler, T. Lay, E. E. Brodsky, H. Kanamori, Rupture-depth-varying seismicity patterns for major (2002), 10.1016/S0031-9201(02)00052-3.
and great (MW ≥7.0) megathrust earthquakes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 9663–9671 (2017), 65. H. Kanamori et al., New constraints on the 1922 Atacama, Chile, earthquake from historical
10.1002/2017GL074573. seismograms. Geophys. J. Int. 219, 645–661 (2019), 10.1093/gji/ggz302.
62. J. P. Loveless, M. E. Pritchard, N. Kukowski, Testing mechanisms of subduction zone segmentation 66. M. Carvajal et al., Reexamination of the magnitudes for the 1906 and 1922 Chilean earthquake
and seismogenesis with slip distributions from recent Andean earthquakes. Tectonophysics 495, using Japanese tsunami amplitudes: Implications for source depth constraints. J. Geophys. Res.:
15–33 (2010), 10.1016/j.tecto.2009.05.008. Solid Earth 122, 4–17 (2016), 10.1002/2016JB013269.
63. M. W. Herman, R. Govers, Locating fully locked asperities along the South America subduction 67. L. R. Sykes, Decadal seismicity prior to great earthquakes at subduction zones: Roles of
megathrust: A new physical inter-seismic inversion approach in a Bayesian framework. Geochem. major asperities and low-coupling zones. Int. J. Geosci. 12, 845–926 (2021), 10.4236/
Geophys. Geosys. 21, e2020GC009063 (2020). ijg.2021.129046.

1 Updated concepts of seismic gaps and asperities to
2 assess great earthquake hazard along South
3 America
4 Thorne Laya,* and Stuart P. Nishenko
5 Supporting Information
6 Ecuador-Colombia
7 The Ecuador-Colombia plate boundary from 4°N to 3°S (Figure 1) involves oblique underthrusting of the
8 Nazca plate at ~4.6 cm/yr below the North Andean Sliver, a fragment of the South American plate (1-3).
9 The broad Carnegie Ridge on the incoming oceanic plate intersects the subduction zone from 0.5°N to
10 2.0°S (4). Modeling of interseismic geodetic strain around the megathrust requires accounting for the
11 movement of the sliver relative to stable South America along with any distributed deformation in the
12 northern Andes. Doing so indicates heterogeneous locking of the plate interface from 3°N to 3°S, with
13 relatively uniform >40% locking north of 0.5°S and an isolated patch below La Plata Island from 1°S to
14 1.5°S where a slow-slip event occurred in 2010 and no large (MW >7) earthquake has been recorded (2; 5-
15 7).
16 The history of very large megathrust earthquakes along this region is relatively short (Figure 2a). The
17 1906 Mw 8.6 Columbia/Ecuador earthquake is the largest known event. It had an estimated rupture length
18 of ~500 km, based on macroseismic data (8), and produced significant local and Pacific wide tsunami (MT
19 8.7, 9). Historic information on earlier events provide only indirect evidence for recurrence times in that
20 no event comparable to 1906 is recorded in the historic catalog from 1575 to 1915 (331 years) (10).
21 Earthquake triggered turbidites collected on the continental slope offshore of Esmeraldas River indicate
22 that one or two earthquakes comparable in size to the 1906 event occurred ~600 years ago (11).
23 A series of great earthquakes re-ruptured the near coastal portion of the 1906 Colombia/Ecuador zone
24 within 36 (1942, MS 7.5), 52 (1958, MS 7.3) and 73 (1979, MS 7.7) years of 1906 (12). An MW 7.1 event in
25 1998 ruptured the southernmost portion of the 1906 zone southwest of the 1942 rupture (2). The
26 aftershock zones of these ruptures abut without overlap within the larger 1906 rupture zone (13). Analysis
27 of seismic waveforms (14) and GPS data (2) has identified discreet asperities associated with the 1958
28 and 1979 ruptures. Kanamori and McNally (12) note that the cumulative seismic moment of the 1942,
29 1958 and 1979 earthquakes based on aftershock zone area is considerably less (~1/5) than the seismic
30 moment of 1906. This discrepancy reduces to ~1/3 based on direct waveform comparisons (14).
31 The re-rupture of the 1942 Pedernales, Ecuador segment in 2016 (MW 7.8, MS 7.5) presents an opportunity
32 to examine persistent heterogeneous frictional properties of the Colombia-Ecuador megathrust, and may
33 indicate the onset of a new earthquake cycle along the Colombia-Ecuador region.
34 2016 Ecuador
35 The 16 April 2016 MW 7.8 Pedernales, Ecuador earthquake (Figures 1, 2a, 3a) ruptured the down-dip
36 portion of the Colombia/Ecuador seismogenic zone along prior ruptures in 1906 (MW 8.6) and 1942 (MW
37 7.8). The source region had previously been accumulating moderate slip deficit based on geodetic
38 measurements (2), with larger slip deficit accumulating in the adjacent regions of non-overlapping
39 aftershock zones of the 1958 (MW 7.6) and 1979 (MW 8.1) ruptures, extending along the 1906 zone. Chlieh
1
40 et al. (2) estimated characteristic earthquake recurrence times for asperities associated with 1942, 1958
41 and 1979 events of ~140±30, 90±20 and 153±80 years, respectively, significantly exceeding their actual
42 intervals since 1906 (36, 52, and 73 years). After 74 years, the 1942 region re-ruptured in the 2016 event.
43 Available high-rate GPS, broadband teleseismic, InSAR, and tsunami data resolve the rupture of two
44 large-slip patches in 2016 with peak slip of ~ 2-6 m and an average slip ~ 2 m (6, 15-18). Comparison of
45 seismic waveforms and magnitudes demonstrate that the 2016 and 1942 events have similar surface wave
46 magnitudes (MS 7.5), overlapping rupture areas, and an overlapping large-slip patch, but not identical
47 teleseismic waveforms – indicating that 2016 was a quasi-repeat of 1942 (15, 19). While the average slip
48 in 2016 is consistent with the plausible slip deficit accumulation of 3.5 m since 1942, given the ~4.7
49 cm/yr convergence rate (15), localized peak slip estimates of 5-6 m exceed the expected slip deficit (6),
50 indicating that significant residual slip deficit persisted after the 1942 event in the localized region of peak
51 slip in 2016. Nocquet et al. (6) also infer excessive moment release in the 1958 and 1979 events relative
52 to slip deficits accumulated since 1906. Noting the lack of historic large earthquakes in the region (Figure
53 2a), they propose that the Ecuador-Colombia region has been experiencing a supercycle of large events
54 over the past century. Yoshimoto et al. (18) invert for the tsunami source of 1906, finding large-slip on
55 the shallow megathrust, up-dip of the large-slip zones in 2016, 1942, 1958 and 1979, complicating
56 assessment of strain budget for localized regions of the megathrust.
57 PERU
58 The Peru seismic zone, extending from 3°S to ~19°S, has the most pronounced variability in very large
59 megathrust faulting history of the entire South American seismogenic zone (Figures 1, 2b). The Northern
60 Peru segment from 3°S to 10°S is bounded by the Grihalva Ridge to the north and the Mendaña Fracture
61 zone to the south. Geodetic measurements in the region (1, 20-21) indicate that the plate boundary is not
62 accumulating significant slip deficit along the 800-km-long segment other than in localized shallow (<20
63 km deep), poorly resolved patches near 3°S-4°S and 7°S-8°S. The area near Chimbote (~9°S) has
64 experienced infrequent large earthquakes (Figure 2b), the largest being MW ~ 7.7-8 in 1619 (8; 21-23).
65 That event destroyed the town of Trujillo and macroseismic reports indicate that damage extended over
66 100-150 km. The most recent large events along Northern Peru are the 1960 MW 7.6 and 1996 MW 7.5
67 earthquakes located on the shallow megathrust (Figure 1, 2b), which have both been characterized as
68 tsunami earthquakes due to having weak radiation of short-period seismic energy, low rupture velocity
69 and long rupture durations (24-27). Future occurrence of very large earthquakes in this region is very
70 difficult to anticipate based on the coupling and historical records.
71 The seismic record for central and southern coastal Peru (Figure 2b) is considered complete for
72 earthquakes of M > ~7.6 for more than 450 yr (21-23; 28). The Central Peru segment from 10°S to 14.5°S
73 is bounded by the Mendaña Fracture Zone to the north and the Nazca Ridge to the south. The subducted
74 Nazca plate in central Peru is characterized by flat, low angle subduction and a lack of active volcanism.
75 Dorbath et al. (23) describe the seismic activity in Central Peru as being complex due to the irregularity of
76 rupture lengths, locations of epicentral zones, and timing. Two earthquakes stand out in the historic
77 record, not only for their size but also for the length of time of seismic quiescence following their
78 occurrence. The 1687 MW 8.4 Ica earthquake ruptured the southern half of the central Peru segment with
79 an estimated rupture length of 350 km and produced a damaging local tsunami with a height of 5 to 10 m
80 (MT 8.5-8.4, 9). The 1746 MW 8.6 Lima, Peru earthquake ruptured the northern 350 km of the central Peru
81 segment 59 years later with long overlap of the 1687 zone and produced a local tsunami of 15 to 24 m
82 height (MT 9 – 9.2, 9). The 1746 event ranks as the largest Peruvian earthquake during the last 450 years
83 (23) and coupled with the earlier 1687 earthquake (the slip distributions are not known in detail) may
84 represent a so-called “Breakthrough Event” (29) that ruptured the entire Central Peru segment (30).
85 Following these two events, a period of seismic quiescence for great earthquakes along much of Central
86 Peru lasted nearly 200 years (23).
2
87 A renewed period of earthquake activity spanning Central Peru started in 1940. A series of great
88 earthquakes progressively re-ruptured portions of the 1687 and 1746 zones in 1940 (MW 8.2), 1966 (MW
89 8.1), 1974 (MW 8.1) and 2007 (MW 8.0) (8; 22-23; 30-31). These recent events occurred at intermediate
90 depths along the megathrust (15 to 35 km), and exhibit non-overlapping rupture zones (Figures 1, 2b)
91 consistent with the seismic gap and asperity concepts. Waveform analysis of these events (18, 31-35)
92 identified one to three concentrated large-slip zones, or asperities, for each event. The events produced
93 minor local tsunamis ranging from 1.6 to 3 m in height that were significantly less than those reported for
94 1687 and 1746. This is similar to the Ecuador-Colombia region. Chlieh et al. (36) estimate that the recent
95 set of events account for less than half of the estimated seismic moment release in 1746, leaving a deficit
96 that could produce an MW 8.5-8.7 event. The 2007 rupture struck the southeastern end of this region,
97 which had not had a very large earthquake since 1746.
98 2007 Pisco, Peru
99 The 15 August 2007 (MW 8.0) Pisco, Peru earthquake produced substantial shaking damage and a large
100 tsunami on the southern Paracas peninsula (Figures 1, 2b, 3b), northwest of the intersection of the Nazca
101 Ridge with the Peru Trench. The seismic, geodetic and tsunami data for this event reveal that the rupture
102 involved two or more large-slip patches straddling the peninsula with about a 60 s lag time between the
103 primary subevents (e.g., 20; 34-43). Maximum slip was up to about 8 m and geodetic slip deficit had been
104 observed prior to the rupture (36).
105 The discrete ruptures during this event, with two main separated asperities experiencing triggering
106 interaction and adjacent up-dip and along-strike afterslip with seismic moment equal to 14% of the co-
107 seismic moment (20) are consistent with the asperity model, but this type of multi-asperity delayed
108 rupture presents great challenges to early warning procedures that attempt to characterize imminent
109 seismic and tsunami hazards from the early energy release or ground deformation (34). Longer term,
110 interseismic coupling models indicate as much as 50-70% aseismic slip in this region and are consistent
111 with return times of 250 years or greater (i.e., 2007 – 1687 = 261 yrs), in this region just north of where
112 the Nazca ridge intersects the subduction zone (20). Given the lack of seismic recordings of prior events
113 striking the recent rupture zones, we cannot assess persistence of asperities in Central Peru.
114 The Southern Peru segment extends from 14.5°S, where the Nazca Ridge intersects the trench, to ~19°S,
115 near the Chilean border and Arica. Great earthquakes have occurred relatively frequently in Southern
116 Peru (22-23; 44) during the last 500+ years (Figure 2b). Great ruptures spanning this segment struck in
117 1604 and 1868, with pairs of very large events (1687/1715 and 1784/1833) also covering most of the
118 length. The region in the north near the city of Nazca had several large ruptures in 1913, 1942 (MW 8.1)
119 and 1996, with the latter two being partially overlapping complex ruptures along the southern flank of the
120 Nazca Ridge intersection (19; 45).
121 2001 Southern Peru
122 The 23 June 2001 MW 8.4 Arequipa (or Camaná), Peru earthquake and its magnitude 7.6 aftershock on 7
123 July 2001 to the southeast, re-ruptured the northern two-thirds of the 1868 seismic gap (Figures 1, 2b, 3b).
124 Based on analysis of seismic, geodetic and tsunami data, the earthquake broke two spatially offset
125 asperities, the first in the northwest of the rupture zone and the second, centrally located asperity being
126 much larger and releasing most of the total seismic moment (34; 36-37; 46-49). Rupture appears to have
127 extended across the megathrust to near the trench (34; 36), unlike the 2007 Pisco and 2016 Ecuador
128 events.
129
130 Earthquake intensity and tsunami runup reports indicate that great events in 1604 and 1868 (10-15 m and
131 14 m peak tsunami runup, respectively) were larger than the overlapping 1582, 1784, and 2001
3
132 earthquakes (1-2 m, 2-4 m, and 8.8 m peak tsunami runup, respectively) (Figure 2b) (23; 46). Lacking
133 seismic recordings it is not possible to compare details of the ruptures or to assess persistence of
134 asperities, but the repeated occurrence of great earthquakes with overlapping ruptures is consistent with
135 the basic seismic gap concept, with frictional heterogeneity resulting in smaller slip patches adjacent to a
136 large central asperity. The 1604 and 1868 MMI VIII isoseismal zones both extend farther southeast
137 toward Arica, Chile than the 2001 ruptures, indicating that the southeasternmost portion of the Peru plate
138 boundary has remained unbroken for 154 years (46; 50-51). Geodetic slip deficit accumulation in the area
139 is high (~63 mm/yr) indicating that as much as ~10 m of slip may have accumulated in the region since
140 1868, with potential seismic moment equivalent to an MW 8.4 event. It is unclear why the 2001 event
141 failed to rupture into this region, but there is evidence for prior smaller events that ruptured just this
142 region in 1833 and 1715 (Figure 2b).
143 CHILE
144 Northern Chile
145 The Northern Chile region extending from 19°S to 26°S has a limited very large earthquake history,
146 dominated by the great 1877 (MW 8.5-8.8) and 1995 Antofagasta (MW 8.0) earthquakes (Figures 1, 2c)
147 (52). Large events for which there is some information struck northernmost Chile in 1615, 1768 and
148 1786, in the vicinity of the recent 2014 Iquique event (44). There is marine evidence for slumping near
149 23°S occurring between 1754 and 1789 (53), indicating that the 1768 and/or 1786 ruptures may have
150 extended along the entire 1877 zone. Marine evidence near 23°S and boulder fields on the Atacama coast
151 also indicate a predecessor event overlapping the 1877 event around 1429 ± 20 (53, 54), coincident with
152 Japanese tsunami records of a distant event on 7 September 1420 (55). Geologic and archeological
153 provide evidence for a giant (M ~ 9.5) earthquake in this region at ~3800 years ago (56) that may have
154 also affected the Northern Chile and Atacama Desert region from 21° to 27° S.
155 2014 Iquique, Chile
156 The 1 April 2014 Mw 8.1 Iquique, Chile earthquake and its large MW 7.7 aftershock on 3 April 2014 to
157 the south ruptured a rather compact area of the northern Chile central megathrust from 19.3°S to 20.7°S
158 (Figures 1, 2c, 3c). The large-slip zone (~2-7 m) for the 2014 mainshock is unusually concentrated for a
159 great earthquake, extending only about 70 km along strike and 50 km along-dip, with finite-slip models
160 being well resolved by seismic, geodetic, and tsunami observations (57-64). The rupture was preceded by
161 months of slowly migrating foreshock activity located up-dip of the eventual mainshock, indicating
162 along-dip variation in frictional properties of the megathrust (59; 65-71)
163 The concentrated mainshock slip, with adjacent down-dip slow deformation and afterslip (71; 72) is
164 consistent with the asperity model, and several prior historical earthquakes have occurred in this region of
165 northernmost Chile over the past few centuries (Figure 2c), so persistence of localized velocity weakening
166 properties is viable. The event struck in an area of large slip deficit inferred from geodesy that extends
167 along northern Chile from 18°S to 25°S, with a low coupling zone near 21°S (36; 72-74), although the
168 coupling estimates depend strongly on assumptions of upper plate (central Andes) distributed
169 deformation. Many estimates of the 1877 rupture extent span this region (e.g., 44; 75), so early
170 interpretations viewed the 2014 event as a partial rupture of the 1877 zone akin to the events along
171 Ecuador-Colombia. However, based on detailed reinterpretation of intensity observations for 1877, the
172 2014 Iquique event, rupturing the megathrust region south of Arica and north of Iquique lies between
173 large-slip regions of the great 1868 and 1877 earthquakes (76) (Figure 3c). The 1877 slip zone may or
174 may or may not have overlapped the 2014 event, and while it extends along the 2007 Tocopilla event at
175 its southern end (Figure 2c), the latter event was concentrated down-dip in Domain C and did not rupture
176 the shallow megathrust (36; 77-80).
4
177 1995 Antofagasta
178 The 30 July 1995 MW 8.0 Antofagasta earthquake ruptured south of the 1877 earthquake gap from 23.3°S
179 to 25°S (Figures 1, 2c, 3d). Analysis of seismic, geodetic, and tsunami data indicate that the rupture
180 began near the Mejillones peninsula and expanded southward with predominantly unilateral slip (81-88),
181 to the vicinity of the 1966 (MS 7.8) Tal-Tal earthquake at its southern end. Long-period directivity
182 indicates a rupture velocity of 3.0-3.2 km/s and rupture duration of 60-68 s (85). The finite-fault studies
183 resolve slip beneath the coastal area in the central megathrust (Domain B of Figure 4), with some along-
184 strike variability that may be due to prior stress relaxation in 1987 (MW 7.5) and 1988 (MW 7.2) ruptures
185 and a 1998 (MW 7.0) aftershock in the deeper portion of the megathrust (Domain C of Figure 4) (87; 89).
186 The rupture south of 24.3°S appears to have modest slip that extends to near the trench (Domain A of
187 Figure 4) based on strong excitation of pwP arrivals (27; 90), and there is some indication of this in finite-
188 fault modeling, although such models lack resolution of slip near the trench (88).
189 North-Central Chile - Atacama
190 Seismic waveform modeling (91) indicates rupture of 3 sub-events during the 1922 Atacama earthquake,
191 consistent with eyewitness accounts of feeling three distinct shocks within the first few minutes. The prior
192 great rupture in 1819 involved a sequence of three events on April 3, 4 and 11, as well (92). As seen in
193 Figure 3d, a line of seamounts intersects the Chile trench near 27°S, in the northern portion of the 1922
194 Atacama earthquake rupture zone which has had repeated smaller events in 1851, 1859, 1918, 1946 and
195 1983 (Figure 2c). The seamounts are spaced ~ 100 to 150 km apart and are ~25 km in diameter. Each
196 seamount or asperity could accumulate a slip deficit of 6 to 7 m per century, equivalent to an M 7+
197 earthquake. While the seismic moments of subevents in 1922 are not well constrained (91; 93), the rough
198 seafloor bathymetry may account for some of the rupture complexity. Evidence for prior great ruptures
199 from paleotsunami run-up along the Atacama include the 1429 ± 20 event (53; 54) discussed above, along
200 with 1267 ± 85? and 964 ± 32? segment-spanning events (94).
201 Central Chile
202 The Illapel region (30°S-32°S) (Figures 1, 3e) is a highly coupled segment of central Chile bounded by
203 the Challenger Fracture Zone (CFZ) to the north and the Juan Fernandez Ridge (JFR) to the south (95-
204 97). The CFZ intersects the Chile Trench near the southern end of the 1922 Atacama earthquake and at
205 the estimated northern end of the great 1730 Valparaíso earthquake, suggesting persistent segmentation.
206 The Illapel segment exhibits complexity of very large earthquake rupture as it ruptured in the northern
207 ~1/3 of the great 1730 MW ~ 9 Valparaíso earthquake as well as in a series of smaller overlapping events
208 in 1880 (MW 8.3), 1943 (MW 7.9), and 2015 (MW 8.3). The latter set of ruptures may possibly involve a
209 persistent asperity on the central megathrust, but with variable amounts of shallow coseismic slip near the
210 trench. There is no clear data on great events prior to 1730, extending south to Constitución.
211 2015 Illapel, Chile
212 The 16 September 2015 MW 8.3 Illapel, Chile earthquake ruptured ~170 km along the plate boundary
213 megathrust in Central Chile from 30°S to 31.6° S (Figure 1). This event struck in the same region as
214 events in 1943, 1880, and 1730 (Figures 2c, 3e) (8; 91; 98-99). The 2015 Illapel earthquake is of
215 particular note because rapid seismic magnitude estimation of the event prompted a tsunami warning and
216 evacuation notifications within 8 to 11 min of the origin time, resulting in large-scale evacuation along
217 the Chile coast (100). Seismic, geodetic, and tsunami waveform analyses of the 2015 Illapel earthquake
218 indicate concentrations of ~3 m co-seismic slip below the coast and an large patch with up to ~10 m slip
219 at shallow depths (94; 100-113). Studies with the best off-shore resolution (including careful modeling of
220 tsunami arrivals) are consistent with the large-slip patch having extended up-dip to near the trench.
5
221 Geodetic measurements prior to the event indicate that there was strong megathrust coupling in the region
222 of large-slip, particularly south of 31°S, although resolution of coupling out to the trench is very low
223 (106; 114-115), and afterslip expanded both northward and southward from the large-slip zone (110; 116-
224 118).
225 Similar to the 2016 Ecuador earthquake, comparisons can be made with details of the prior very large
226 rupture in 1943. The 1943 MW 7.9 event has a single pulse of large moment rate at depths < 35 km but has
227 a much smaller seismic moment estimate and simpler waveforms that indicate that it did not rupture the
228 shallow portion of the megathrust (91; 101). Local tsunami heights for the 2015 event are significantly
229 higher than those in 1943, and ranged from 3 to 6 m along the coast from 29°S to 32°S, with localized
230 peak values of 13 m at La Cebada (30.98°S, 71.65°W) and 10.8m at Totoral (30.37°S, 71.67°W) and a
231 tide gauge peak recording of 4.5 m at Coquimbo to the north (119; 120). Far-field tsunami amplitudes
232 reported in Japan for the 1943 event (10-30 cm, 91) are less than those reported in 2015 (11-80 cm). The
233 macroseismic effects of the 1943 earthquake are broadly similar to the 2015 event, but extend further
234 south. (8; 91). Aftershocks for the 1943 event, located by Kelleher (8) using S-P times from La Paz,
235 indicate along-strike rupture zone dimension comparable to 2015 (106). Peak slip in 2015 (8-12 m) is
236 greater than the slip accumulated during the interval 1943-2015 (5.3 m for 74 mm/yr convergence)
237 although average slip is comparable. Overall, the 2015 event is not a simple repeat of the 1943 event and
238 likely had much more slip at shallow depth (100). The 1880 rupture was similar in extent, but the 1730
239 rupture extended much further to the south, akin to the Ecuador-Colombia behavior. While there may be
240 persistent asperities in the central and shallow megathrust, they may fail independently in some events
241 and may participate in along-strike cascades in other events (106).
242 2010 Maule, Chile
243 The 27 February 2010 Maule (MW 8.8) earthquake ruptured the plate boundary offshore of central Chile
244 between 34°S and 38.5°S (Figure 1, 3f). The coseismic slip of this event has been determined by analysis
245 of seismic, geodetic, and tsunami observations (121-134). Patchy coseismic slip is distributed over a
246 region 460 km long and 100 km wide between the depths of 15 and 40 km. Two large-slip asperity
247 regions are resolved along the megathrust, one extending from 34°S to 36°S (with up to 20 m slip) and
248 the other from 37°S to 38°S (with up to 10 m slip). Finite fault inversions relying on only on-land static
249 geodetic data tend to place slip on the central megathrust toward the coastline (124; 125; 131), but (132)
250 and (134) find that the large-slip patches include slip of 5-8 m all the way to the trench based on joint
251 inversions with accurately modeled tsunami observations. This is consistent with direct images of
252 coseismic seafloor displacement at the trench from repeated seismic reflection surveys (135).
253 Concentrations of outer trench-slope normal faulting occurred offshore from these shallow slip patches
254 (132). Aftershocks concentrate along the down-dip megathrusts and around the large-slip zones (136).
255
256 Geodetic measurements had resolved accumulating slip deficit prior to the rupture along the entire
257 rupture area, with moderate reduction near 35°S (95; 114; 123; 131; 137), but the patchy slip distribution
258 only loosely conforms to the variable geodetic locking distribution (138). Afterslip extends along the
259 length of the rupture primarily down-dip and between the two large coseismic slip patches (126; 131;
260 139-140). While the region was recognized as a seismic gap along the historic 1835 rupture zone and
261 geophysical instrumentation was deployed in the region in advance of the earthquake, the co-seismic slip
262 was moderate in the 1835 source area. Substantial slip overlapped the 1928 rupture zone and slip
263 terminated adjacent to the 1985 rupture zone (141). The estimated slip deficit from 1835 to 2010 is ~12
264 m, somewhat above the average slip in the southern half of the rupture zone. Much less slip deficit could
265 have accumulated after 1928, but that event could have ruptured the deeper megathrust, below the region
266 of 20 m slip in 2010, with large ruptures in 1647, 1730 and 1751 possibly having ruptured the same
267 region (Figure 2c). Conventional seismic gap ideas with strong segmentation do not characterize this
6
268 region well, but the Reid strain renewal concept in conjunction with a distribution of persistent asperities
269 along the megathrust reconciles the historical behavior.
270 Southern Chile
271 Southern Chile (Figures 1, 2d), extending from 38°S near the Arauco Peninsula to 48°S near the
272 intersection with the Chile Rise has hosted several great historic megathrust ruptures in 1575, 1737 and
273 1837 (52; 92; 142; 143), as well as the 1960 MW 9.5 event (144-150). It appears that the 1737 and 1837
274 events had limited overlap (Figure 2d), and together spanned the 1575 and 1960 rupture extent (52).
275 Paleotsunami evidence indicates ruptures preceding 1575 in 1337 ± 18(?) and 1154 ± 27 (94), with
276 biostratigraphy giving compatible dates of 1270-1450 and 1070-1220 (151). A recurrence time of about
277 270 years appears to hold along this segment (142; 152). Dura et al. (152) also consider whether the
278 Arauco Peninsula (37°-38°S) is a persistent barrier. The 2010 Maule event ruptured into, but not across
279 this region, and the 1835, 1751, 1657 and 1570 events in Central Chile also did not cross it, nor did the
280 1960, 1737 and 1575 events to the south, so it appears to have been a persistent impediment to through-
281 going rupture over the last 600 years.
7
282 Supplemental Refs
283 1. J.-M. Nocquet, J. C. Villegas-Lanza, M. Chlieh, P. A. Mothes, F. Rolandone, P. Jarrin et al.,

284 Motion of continental slivers and creeping subduction in the northern Andes. Nat. Geosci., 7,
285 287-291 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2099.
286 2. M. Chlieh, P. A. Mothes, J.-M. Nocquet, P. Jarrin, P. Charvis, D. Cisneros, et al., Distribution of
287 discrete seismic asperities and aseismic slip along the Ecuadorian megathrust. Earth Planet. Sci.
288 Lett. 400, 292-301 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2014.05.027.
289 3. A. Alvarado, L. Audin, J. M. Nocquet, E. Jaillard, P. Mothes, P. A. Jarrín, et al. Partitioning of
290 oblique convergence in the Northern Andes subduction zone: Migration history and the present-
291 day boundary of the North Andean Sliver in Ecuador. Tectonics 35, 1048-1065 (2016).
292 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016TC004117.
293 4. P. Lonsdale, Ecuadorian subduction system. Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 62, 2454-2477 (1978).
294 5. J.-Y. Collot, E. Sanclemente, J.-M. Nocquet, A. Lepretre, A. Riboderti, P. Jarrin, et al., Subducted
295 oceanic relief locks the shallow megathrust in central Ecuador. J. Geophys. Res. 122, 3286-3305
296 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013849
297 6. J.-M. Nocquet, P. Jarrin, M. Vallée, P. A. Mothes, R. Grandin, F. Rolandone et al., Supercycle at
298 the Ecuadorian subduction zone revealed after the 2016 Pedernales earthquake. Nat. Geosci. 10,
299 145-149 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2864.
300 7. P. A. Mothes, F. Rolandone, J.-M. Nocquet, P. A. Jarrín, A. P. Alvarado, M. C. Ruiz et al.,
301 Monitoring the earthquake cycle in the northern Andes from the Ecuadorian cGPS network.
302 Seism. Res. Lett. 89, 534-541 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170243.
303 8. J. A. Kelleher, Rupture zones of large South American earthquakes and some predictions. J.
304 Geophys. Res. 77, 2087-2103 (1972).
305 9. K. Abe, Size of great earthquake of 1837-1979 inferred from tsunami data, J. Geophys. Res. 84,
306 1561-1568 (1979).
307 10. J. E. Ramirez, Earthquake history of Colombia, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 23, 13-22 (1933).
308 11. S. Migeon, C. Garibaldi, G. Ratzov, S. Schmidt, J.-Y. Collot, S. Zaragosi, L. Texier, Earthquake-
309 triggered deposits in the subduction trench of the north Ecudaor/south Colombia margin and their
310 implication for paleoseismology. Mar. Geo. 384, 47-62, (2017).
311 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2016.09.008.
312 12. H. Kanamori, K. C. McNally, Variable rupture mode of the subduction zone along the Ecuador-
313 Colombia coast. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 72, 1241-1253 (1982).
8
314 13. C. Mendoza, J. W. Dewey, Seismicity associated with the great Colombia-Ecuador earthquakes
315 of 1942, 1958, and 1979: Implications for barrier models of earthquake rupture. Bull. Seism. Soc.
316 Am. 74, 577-593 (1984).
317 14. S. L. Beck, L.J. Ruff, The rupture process of the great 1979 Colombia earthquake: evidence for
318 the asperity model. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 9281-9291 (1984).
319 15. L. Ye, H. Kanamori, J.-P. Avouac, L. Li, K. F. Cheung, T. Lay, The 16 April 2016, MW 7.8 (MS
320 7.5) Ecuador earthquake: A quasi-repeater of the 1942 MS 7.5 earthquake and partial re-rupture of
321 the 1906 MS 8.6 Colombia-Ecuador earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 454, 248-258 (2016).
322 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.006.
323 16. P. He, E. A. Hetland, Q. Wang, K. Ding, Y. Wen, R. Zou, Coseismic slip in the 2016 MW 7.8
324 Ecuador earthquake imaged from Sentinel-1A radar interferometry. Seism. Res. Lett. 88, 277-286
325 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1785/0220160151.
326 17. M. Heidarzadeh, S. Murotani, K. Satake, T. Takagawa, T. Saito, Fault size and depth extent of the
327 Ecuador earthquake (MW 7.8) of 16 April 2016 from teleseismic and tsunami data. Geophys. Res.
328 Lett. 44, 2211-2219 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL072545.
329 18. M. Yoshimoto, M., H. Kumagai, W. Acero, G. Ponce, F. Vásconez, S. Arrais, et al., Depth-
330 dependent rupture mode along the Ecuador-Colombia subduction zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44,
331 2203-2210 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071929.
332 19. J. L. Swenson, S. L. Beck, Historical 1942 Ecuador and 1942 Peru subduction earthquakes, and
333 earthquake cycles along Colombia-Ecuador and Peru subduction segments. Pure Appl. Geophys.
334 146, 67-101 (1996).
335 20. H. Perfettini, J.-P. Avouac, H. Tavera, A. Kositsky, J.-M. Nocquet, F. Bondoux, et al., Seismic
336 and aseismic slip on the Central Peru megathrust. Nature 465, 78-81 (2010).
337 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09062.
338 21. J. C. Villegas-Lanza, M. Chlieh, O. Cavalié, H. Tavera, P. Baby, J. Chire-Chira, J.-M. Nocquet,
339 Active tectonics of Peru: Heterogeneous interseismic coupling along the Nazca megathrust, rigid
340 motion of the Peruvian Sliver, and Subandean shortening accommodation. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid
341 Earth 121, 7371-7394 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013080.
342 22. E. Silgado, Destructive earthquakes of South America 1530-1894, Earthquake Mitigation
343 Program in the Andean Region, Project SISRA, vol. 10, 315 pp., Lima, Peru (1985).
344 23. L. Dorbath, A. Cisternas, C. Dorbath, Assessment of the size of large and great historical
345 earthquakes in Peru. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 80, 551-576 (1990).
346 24. A. M. Pelayo, D. A. Wiens, The November 20, 1960 Peru tsunami earthquake – source
347 mechanism of a slow event. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 661-664 (1990).
9
348 25. P. F. Ihmlé, J.-M. Gomez, P. Heinrich, S. Guibourg, The 1996 Peru tsunamigenic earthquake:
349 Broadband source process. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2691-2694 (1998).
350 26. S. L. Bilek, Seismicity along the South American subduction zone: Review of large earthquakes,
351 tsunamis and subduction zone complexity. Tectonophys. 495, 2-14 (2010).
352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2009.02.037.
353 27. Z. Wu, T. Lay, L. Ye, Shallow megathrust slip during large earthquakes that have high P coda
354 levels. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 124, e2019JB018709.
355 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB018709.
356 28. B. L. Askew, S. T. Algermissen (eds). Catalog of Earthquakes for South America: Hypocenter
357 and Intensity Data (Ceresis publication, Volumes 4, 6, and 7a, b and c) (1985).
358 29. N. Wetzler, T. Lay, E. E. Brodsky, H. Kanamori, Rupture-depth-varying seismicity patterns for
359 major and great (MW ≥7.0) megathrust earthquakes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 9663-9671 (2017).
360 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074573.
361 30. S. L. Beck, S.P. Nishenko, Variations in the mode of great earthquake rupture along the central
362 Peru subduction zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 1969-1972 (1990).
363 31. J. W. Dewey, W. Spence, Seismic gaps and source zones of recent large earthquakes in coastal
364 Peru. Pure Appl. Geophys., 117, 1148-1171 (1979).
365 32. S. L. Beck, L.J. Ruff, Great earthquakes and subduction along the Peru trench. Phys. Earth
366 Planet. Int. 57, 199-224 (1989).
367 33. C. J. Langer, W. Spence, The 1974 Peru earthquake series. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 85, 665-687
368 (1995).
369 34. T. Lay, C. J. Ammon, A. R. Hutko, H. Kanamori, Effects of kinematic constraints on teleseismic
370 finite-source rupture inversions: Great Peruvian earthquakes of 23 June 2001 and 15 August
371 2007. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 100, 969-994 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090274.
372 35. A. Sladen, H. Tavera, M. Simons, J. P. Avouac, A. O. Konca, H. Perfettini, L. Audin, E. J.
373 Fielding, F. Ortega, R. Cavagnoud, Source model of the 2007 Mw 8.0 Pisco, Peru earthquake:
374 Implications for seismogenic behavior of subduction megathrusts. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B02405
375 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006429.
376 36. M. Chlieh, H. Perfettini, H. Tavera, J.-P. Avouac, D. Remy, J.-M. Nocquet et al., Interseismic
377 coupling and seismic potential along the Central Andes subduction zone. J. Geophys. Res. 116,
378 B12405 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB008166.
379 37. M. E. Pritchard, E. O. Norabuena, C. Ji, R. Boroschek, D. Comte, M. Simons, T. H. Dixon, P. A.
380 Rosen, Geodetic, teleseismic, and strong motion constraints on slip from recent southern Peru
10
381 subduction zone earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B03307 (2007).
382 https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004294.
383 38. M. Motagh, R. Wang, T. R. Walter, R. Bürgmann, E. Fielding, J. Anderssohn, J. Zschau,
384 Coseismic slip model of the 2007 August Pisco earthquake (Peru) as constrained by wide swath
385 radar observations. Geophys. J. Int. 174, 842-848 (2008).
386 39. M. E. Pritchard, E. J. Fielding, A study of the 2006 and 2007 earthquake sequence of Pisco, Peru,
387 with InSAR and teleseismic data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L09308 (2008).
388 https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033374.
389 40. H. Tavera, I. Bernal, The Pisco (Peru) earthquake of 15 August 2007. Seismol. Res. Lett. 79, 510-
390 515 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.79.4.510.
391 41. J. D. Biggs, P. Robinson, T. H. Dixon, The 2007 Pisco, Peru, earthquake (M 8.0): seismology and
392 geodesy. Geophys. J. Int. 176, 657-669 (2009).
393 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03990.x.
394 42. O. Sufri, K. D. Koper, T. Lay, Along-dip seismic radiation segmentation during the 2007 MW 8.0
395 Pisco, Peru earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L08311 (2012).
396 https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051316.
397 43. M. Ioualalen, H. Perettini, S. Yauri Condo, C. Jimenez, H. Tavera, Tsunami modeling to validate
398 slip models of the 2007 MW 8.0 Pisco earthquake, Central Peru. Pure Appl. Geophys. 170, 433-
399 451 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0608-z.
400 44. D. Comte, M. Pardo, Reappraisal of great historical earthquakes in the Northern Chile and
401 Southern Peru seismic gaps. Nat. Haz. 4, 23-44 (1991).
402 45. J. L. Swenson, S. L. Beck, Source characteristics of the 12 November 1996 MW 7.7 Peru
403 subduction zone earthquake. Pure Appl. Geophys. 154, 731-751 (1999).
404 46. M. K. Giovanni, S. L. Beck, L. Wagner (2002), The June 23, 2001 Peru earthquake and the
405 southern Peru subduction zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 2018 (2002).
406 https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015774.
407 47. S. L. Bilek, L. J. Ruff, Analysis of the 23 June 2001 MW = 8.4 Peru underthrusting earthquake and
408 its aftershocks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 1960 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015543.
409 48. D. P. Robinson, S. Das, A. B. Watts, Earthquake rupture stalled by a subducting fracture zone.
410 Science 312, 1203-1205 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1125771.
411 49. C. Jiménez, C. Carbonel, J. C. Villegas-Lanza, Seismic source of the earthquake of Camana Peru
412 2001 (MW 8.2) from joint inversion of geodetic and tsunami data. Pure Appl. Geophys. 178, 4763-
413 4775 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-020-02616-8.
11
414 50. H. Perfettini, J.-P. Avouac, J. Ruegg, Geodetic displacements and aftershocks following the 2001,
415 MW = 8.4 Peru earthquake: implications for the mechanics of the earthquake cycle along
416 subduction zones. J. Geophys. Res. 110, B09404 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003522.
417 51. J. P. Loveless, M. E. Pritchard, N. Kukowski, Testing mechanisms of subduction zone
418 segmentation and seismogenesis with slip distributions from recent Andean earthquakes.
419 Tectonophys. 495, 15-33 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2009.05.008.
420 52. S. Ruiz, R. Madariaga, Historical and recent large megathrust earthquakes in Chile. Tectonophys.
421 733, 37-56 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.01.015.
422 53. G. Vargas, L. Ortlieb, E Chapron, J. Valdes, C. Marquardt, Paleoseismic inerences from a high-
423 resolution marine sedimentary record in northern Chile (23°S). Tectonophys. 399 381-398 (2005).
424 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2004.12.031.
425 54. M. Abad, T. Izquierdo, M. Cáceres, E. Bernández, J. Rodríguez-Vidal, Coastal boulder deposit as
426 evidence of an ocean-wide prehistoric tsunami originated on the Atacama Desert coast (northern
427 Chile). Sedimentology 67, 1505-1528 (2020).
428 55. I. Tsuji, Catalog of distant tsunamis researching Japan from Chile and Perú. Rep. Tsunami Eng.
429 30, 61-68 (2013).
430 56. D. Salazar, G. Easton, J. Goff, J. L. Guendon, J. González-Alfaro, P. Andrade, et al., Did a 3800-
431 year-old MW ~9.5 earthquake trigger major social disruption in the Atacama desert? Sci. Adv. 8,
432 eabm2996 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm2996.
433 57. C. An, I. Sepúlveda, P. L.-F. Liu, Tsunami source and its validation of the 2014 Iquique, Chile,
434 earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41 3988-3994 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060567.
435 58. G. P. Hayes, M. W. Herman, W. D. Barnhart, K. P. Furlong, S. Riquelme, H. M. Benz, et al.,
436 Continuing megathrust earthquake potential in Chile after the 2014 Iquique earthquake. Nature
437 512, 295-298 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13677.
438 59. T. Lay, H. Yue, E. E. Brodsky, C. An, The 1 April 2014 Iquique, Chile MW 8.1 earthquake
439 rupture sequence. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 3818-3825 (2014).
440 https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060238.
441 60. Y. Bai, K. F. Cheung, Y. Yamazaki, T. Lay, L. Ye, Tsunami surges around the Hawaiian Islands
442 from the 1 April 2014 North Chile MW 8.1 earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 8512-8521 (2014).
443 https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061686.
444 61. Y. Yagi, R. Okuwaki, B. Enescu, S. Hirano, Y. Yamagami, S. Endo, T. Komoro, Rupture process
445 of the 2014 Iquique Chile Earthquake in relation with the foreshock activity. Geophys. Res. Lett.
446 41, 4201-4206 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060274.
12
447 62. A. R. Gusman, S. Murotani, K. Satake, M. Heidarzadeh, E. Gunawan, S. Watada, B. Schurr, Fault
448 slip distribution of the 2014 Iquique, Chile earthquake estimated from ocean-wide tsunami
449 waveforms and GPS data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 1053-1060 (2015).
450 https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062604.
451 63. Z. Duputel, J. Jiang, R. Jolivet, M. Simons, L. Rivera, J.-P. Ampuero, et al., The Iquique
452 earthquake sequence of April 2014: Bayesian modeling accounting for prediction uncertainty.
453 Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 7949-7957 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065402.
454 64. C. Liu, Y. Zheng, R. Wang, X. Xiong, Kinematic rupture process of the 2014 Chile MW 8.1
455 earthquake constrained by strong-motion, GPS static offsets and teleseismic data. Geophys. J. Int.
456 202, 1137-1145 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv214.
457 65. E. E. Brodsky, T. Lay, Recognizing foreshocks from the 1 April 2014 Chile earthquake, Science
458 344, 700-702 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255202.
459 66. A. Kato, S. Nakagawa, Multiple slow-slip events during a foreshock sequence of the 2014
460 Iquique, Chile MW 8.1 earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 5420-5427 (2014).
461 https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061138.
462 67. S. Ruiz, M. Métois, A. Fuenzalida, J. Ruiz, F. Leyton, R. Grandin, C. Vigny, R. Madariaga, J.
463 Campos, Intense foreshocks and a slow slip event preceded the 2014 Iquique MW 8.1 earthquake.
464 Science 345, 1165-1169 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256074.
465 68. B. Schurr, G. Asch, S. Hainzl, J. Bedford, A. Hoechner, M. Palo, et al., Gradual unlocking of
466 plate boundary controlled initiation of the 2014 Iquique earthquake. Nature 512, 299-302 (2014).
468 69. L. Meng, H. Huang, R. Bürgmann, J. P. Ampuero, A. Strader, Dual megathrust slip behaviors of
469 the 2014 Iquique earthquake sequence. Earth Plant. Sci. Lett. 411, 177-187 (2015).
471 70. S. Cesca, F. Grigoli, S. Heimann, T. Dahmn, M. Kriegerowski, M. Sobiesisak, et al., The MW 8.1
472 2014 Iquique, Chile, seismic sequence: a tale of foreshocks and aftershocks. Geophys. J. Int. 204,
473 1766-1780 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv544.
474 71. A. Socquet, J. P. Valdes, J. Jara, F. Cotton, A. Walpersdorf, N. Cotte, et al., An 8 months slow
475 slip event triggers progressive nucleation of the 2014 Chile megathrust. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44,
476 4046-4053 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073023.
477 72. F. Hoffmann, S. Metzger, M. Moreno, Z. Deng, C. Sippl, F. Ortega-Culaciati, O. Oncken,
478 Characterizing afterslip and ground displacement rate increase following the 2014 Iquique-
479 Pisagua MW 8.1 earthquake, Northern Chile. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 123, 4171-4192
480 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JB014970.
13
481 73. M. Chlieh, J. B. de Chabalier, J. C. Ruegg, R. Armijo, R. Dmowska, J. Campos, K. L. Feigl,
482 Crustal deformation and fault slip during the seismic cycle in the North Chile subduction zone,
483 from GPS and InSAR observations. Geophys. J. Int. 158, 695-711 (2004).
484 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02326.x.
485 74. M. Métois, A. Socquet, C. Vigny, D. Carrizo, S. Peyrat, A. Delorme, et al., Revisiting the North
486 Chile seismic gap segmentation using GPS-derived interseismic coupling. Geophys. J. Int. 194,
487 1283-1294 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt183.
488 75. E. Kausel, Los terremotos de Agosto de 1868 y Mayo de 1877 que afectaron el sur del Perú y
489 norte de Chile. Boletín de la Academia Chilena de Ciencias 3, 8-13 (1986).
490 76. C. Vigny, E. Klein, The 1877 megathrust earthquake of North Chile two times smaller than
491 thought? A review of ancient articles. J. S. Amer. Earth Sci. 117, 103878 (2022).
492 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2022.103878.
493 77. Delouis, B., M. Pardo, D. Legrand, T. Monfret, The MW 7.7 Tocopilla earthquake of 14
494 November 2007 at the southern edge of the northern Chile seismic gap: Rupture in the deep part
495 of the coupled plate interface. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 99, 87-94 (2009).
496 https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080192.
497 78. M. Béjar-Pizarro, Asperities and barriers on the seismogenic zone in North Chile: state-of-the-art
498 after the 2007 MW 7.7 Tocopilla earthquake inferred by GPS and InSAR data. Geohys. J. Int. 183,
499 390-406 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04748.x
500 79. S. Peyrat, R. Madariaga, E. Buforn, J. Campos, G. Asch, J. P. Vilotte, Kinematic rupture process
501 of the 2007 Tocopilla earthquake and its main aftershocks from teleseismic and strong motion
502 data. Geophys. J. Int, 182, 1411-1430 (2010).
503 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04685.x.
504 80. B. Schurr, G. Asch, M. Rosenau, R. Wang, O. Oncken, S. Barrientos, P. Salazar, J.-P. Vilotte,
505 The 2007 M7.7 Tocopilla northern Chile earthquake sequence: Implications for along-strike and
506 downdip rupture segmentation and megathrust frictional behavior. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B05305
507 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB009030.
508 81. J. C. Ruegg, J. Campos, R. Armijo, S. Barrientos, P. Briole, R. Thiele, et al., The MW=8.1
509 Antofagasta (North Chile) earthquake of July 30, 1995: First results from teleseismic and
510 geodetic data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 917-920 (1996).
511 82. Delouis, B., T. Monfret, L. Dorbath, M. Pardo, L. Rivera, D. Comte, et al., The MW = 8.0
512 Antofagasta (Northern Chile) earthquake of 30 July 1995: A precursor to the end of the larger
513 1877 gap. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 87, 427-445 (1997).
14
514 83. P. F. Ihmlé, J.-C. Ruegg, Source tomography by simulated annealing using broad-band surface
515 waves and geodetic data: application to the MW=8.1 Chile 1995 event. Geophys. J. Int. 131, 146-
516 158 (1997).
517 84. S. Guibourg, P. Heinrich, R. Roche, Numerical modeling of the 1995 Chilean tsunami. Impact on
518 French Polynesia. Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 775-778 (1997).
519 85. D. L. Carlo, T. Lay, C. J. Ammon, J. Zhang, Rupture process of the 1995 Antofagasta subduction
520 earthquake (MW = 8.1). Pure Appl. Geophys. 154 677-709 (1999).
521 86. J. Klotz, D. Angermann, G. W. Michel, R. Porth, C. Reigber, J. Reinking, et al., GPS-derived
522 deformation of the central Andes including the 1995 Antofagasta MW = 8.0 earthquake. Pure
523 Appl. Geophys. 154 709-730 (1999).
524 87. M. E. Pritchard, M. Simons, P. A. Rosen, S. Hensley, F. H. Webb, Co-seismic slip rom the 1995
525 July 30 MW=8.1 Antofagasta, Chile, earthquake as constrained by InSAR and GPS observations.
526 Geophys. J. Int. 150, 362-376 (2002).
527 88. M. E. Pritchard, C. Ji, M. Simons, Distribution of slip from 11 MW > 6 earthquake in the northern
528 Chile subduction zone, J. Geophys. Res. 111, B10302 (2006).
529 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004013.
530 89. M.E. Pritchard, M. Simons, An aseismic slip pulse in northern Chile and along-strike variations
531 in seismogenic behavior. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B08405 (2006).
532 https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004258.
533 90. P. F. Ihmlé, R. Madariaga, Monochromatic body waves excited by great subduction zone
534 earthquakes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 2999-3002 (1996).
535 91. S. Beck, S. Barrientos, E. Kausel, M. Reyes, Source characteristics of historic earthquakes along
536 the central Chile subduction zone. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 11, 115–129 (1998).
537 92. C. Lomnitz, C., Major earthquakes of Chile: A historical survey, 1535 – 1960. Seism. Res. Lett.
538 75, 368-378 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.75.3.368.
539 93. H. Kanamori, L. Rivera, L. Ye, T. Lay, S. Murotani, K. Tsumura, New constraints on the 1922
540 Atacama, Chile, earthquake from historical seismograms. Geophys. J. Int. 219, 645-661 (2019).
541 https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggz302.
542 94. G. Easton, J. González-Alfaro, A. Villalobos, G. Álvarez, D. Melgar, S. Ruiz, B. Sepúlveda, M.
543 Escobar, T. León, J. Carlos Báez, et al., Complex rupture of the 2015 MW 8.3 Illapel earthquake
544 and prehistoric events in the Central Chile tsunami gap. Seis. Res. Lett. 93, 1479–1496 (2022).
545 https://doi.org/10.1785/0220210283.
15
546 95. M. Métois, A. Socquet, C. Vigny, Interseismic coupling, segmentation and mechanical behavior
547 of the central Chile subduction zone. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B03406 (2012).
548 https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008736.
549 96. M. Métois, C. Vigny, A. Socquet, A. Delorme, S. Morvan, I. Ortega, C. M. Valderas-Bermejo,
550 GPS-derived interseismic coupling on the subduction and seismic hazards in the Atacama region,
551 Chile, Geophys. J. Inter., 196, 644-655 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt418.
552 97. M. W. Herman, R. Govers, Locating fully locked asperities along the South America subduction
553 megathrust: A new physical inter-seismic inversion approach in a Bayesian framework.
554 Geochem. Geophys., Geosys. 21, e2020GC009063 (2020).
555 98. C. Lomnitz, Major earthquakes and tsunamis in Chile during the period 1535 to 1953. Geol.
556 Rundsch. 59, 938-960 (1970).
557 99. S. P. Nishenko, Seismic potential for large and great interplate earthquakes along the Chilean and
558 southern Peruvian margins of South America: A quantitative reappraisal. J. Geophys. Res. 90,
559 3589–3615 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB05p03589.
560 100. L. Ye, T. Lay, H. Kanamori, K.D. Koper, Rapidly estimated seismic source parameters for the 16
561 September 2015 Illapel Chile MW 8.3 earthquake. Pure Appl. Geophys. 173, 321-332 (2016).
562 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1202-y.
563 101. M. Heidarzadeh, S. Murotani, K. Satake, T. Ishibe, A. R. Gusman, Source model of the 16
564 September 2015 Illapel, Chile MW 8.4 earthquake based on teleseismic and tsunami data.
566 102. L. Li, T. Lay, K. F. Cheung, L. Ye, Joint modeling of teleseismic and tsunami wave observations
567 to constrain the 16 September 2015 Illapel, Chile, MW 8.3 earthquake rupture process. Geophys.
568 Res. Lett. 43, 4303-4312 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068674.
569 103. D. Melgar, W. Fan, S. Riquelme, J. Geng, C. Liang, M. Fuentes, G. Vargas, R. M. Allen, P. M.
570 Shearer, E. J. Fielding, Slip segmentation and slow rupture to the trench during the 2015, Mw8.3
571 Illapel, Chile earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 961–966 (2016).
572 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067369.
573 104. R. Okuwaki, Y. Yagi, R. Aránguiz, J. González, G. González, Rupture process during the 2015
574 Illapel, Chile Earthquake: Zigzag-along-dip rupture episodes. Pure. Appl. Geophys. 173, 1011-
575 1020 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-016-1271-6.
576 105. S. Ruiz, E. Klein, F. del Campo, E. Rivera, P. Poli, M. Metois, V. Christophe, J.C. Baez, G.
577 Vargas, F. Leyton, R. Madariaga, L. Fleitout, The seismic sequence of the 16 September 2015
578 MW 8.3 Illapel, Chile earthquake. Seism. Res. Lett. 87, 789-799 (2016).
579 https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150281.
16
580 106. F. Tilmann, Y. Zhang, M. Moreno, J. Saul, F. Eckelmann, M. Palo et al., The 2015 Illapel
581 earthquake, central Chile: A type case for a characteristic earthquake? Geophys. Res. Lett. 43,
582 574–583 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066963.
583 107. J. Yin, H. Yang, H. Yao, H. Weng, Coseismic radiation and stress drop during the 2015 MW 8.3
584 Illapel, Chile megathrust earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 1520-1528 (2016).
585 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067381.
586 108. C. An, H. Yue, J. Sun, L. Meng, J. C. Báez, The 2015 MW 8.3 Illapel, Chile, earthquake:
587 Direction-reversed along-dip rupture with localized water reverberation. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.,
588 107, 2416-2426 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160393.
589 109. M. W. Herman, J. L. Nealy, W. L. Yeck, W. D. Barnhart, G. P. Hayes, K. P. Furlong, H. M.
590 Benz, Integrated geophysical characteristics of the 2015 Illapel, Chile, earthquake. J. Geophys.
591 Res.: Solid Earth 122, 4691-4711 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013617.
592 110. E. Klein, C. Vigny, L. Fleitout, R. Grandin, R. Jolivet, E. Rivera, M. Métois, A comprehensive
593 analysis of the Illapel 2015 MW 8.3 earthquake from GPS and InSAR data. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
594 469, 123-134 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.04.010.
595 111. K. Satake, M. Heidarzadeh, A review of source models of the 2015 Illapel, Chile earthquake and
596 insights from tsunami data. Pure Appl. Geophys. 174, 1-9 (2017).
597 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-016-1450-5.
598 112. A. Williamson, A. Newman, and P. Cummins, Reconstruction of coseismic slip from the 2015
599 Illapel earthquake using combined geodetic and tsunami waveform data/ J. Geophys. Res. Solid
600 Earth 122, 2119-2130 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013883.
601 113. C. Liu, C. An, B. Shan, X. Xiong, X. Chen, Insights into the kinematic rupture of the 2015 MW
602 8.3 Illapel, Chile, earthquake from joint analysis of geodetic, seismological, tsunami, and
603 superconductive gravimeter observations. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 123, 9778-7999 (2018).
604 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB016065.
605 114. C. Vigny, A. Rudloff, J.-C. Ruegg, R. Madariaga, J. Campos, M. Alvarez, Upper plate
606 deformation measured by GPS in the Coquimbo Gap, Chile. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 175, 86–
607 95 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2008.02.013.
608 115. M. Métois, C. Vigny, A. Socquet, Interseismic coupling, megathrust earthquakes and seismic
609 swarms along the Chilean subduction zone (38°-18°S). Pure Appl. Geophys. 1783, 1431-1449
610 (2016).
611 116. M. N. Shrivastava, G. González, M. Moreno, M. Chlieh, P. Salazar, C. D. Reddy, et al.,
612 Coseismic slip and afterslip of the 2015 MW 8.3 Illapel (Chile) earthquake determined from
17
613 continuous GPS data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 10710-10719 (2016).
614 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070684.
615 117. W. Feng, S. Samsonov, Y. Tian, Q. Qiu, P. Li, Y. Zhang, Z. Deng, K. Omari, Surface
616 deformation associated with the 2015 MW 8.3 Illapel earthquake revealed by satellite-based
617 geodetic obseervations and its implications for the seismic cycle. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 460,
618 222-233 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.11.018.
619 118. H. Huang, W. Xu, L. Meng, R. Burgmann, J. C. Baez, Early aftershocks and afterslip surrounding
620 the 2015 MW 8.4 Illapel rupture. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 457, 282-291 (2017).
622 119. R. Aránguiz, G. González, J. González, P. A. Catalán, R. Cienfuegos, Y. Yagi, et al., The 16
623 September 2015 Chile tsunami from the post-tsunami survey and numerical modeling
624 perspectives, Pure Appl. Geophys. 333-348 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1225-4.
625 120. M. Contreras-López, P. Winckler, I. Sepúlveda, A. Anduar-Álvarez, F. Cortés-Molina, C. J.
626 Gueerrero, et al., Field survey of the 2015 Chile tsunami with emphasis on coastal wetland and
627 conservation areas. Pure Appl. Geophys. 173, 349-367 (2016).
628 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1235-2.
629 121. B. Delouis, J.-M. Nocquet, M. Vallée, Slip distribution of the February 27, 2010 MW = 8.8 Maule
630 earthquake, central Chile, from static and high-rate GPS, InSAR and broadband teleseismic data.
631 Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L17305 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043899.
632 122. T. Lay, C. J. Ammon, H. Kanamori, K. D. Koper, O. Sufri, A. R. Hutko, Teleseismic inversion
633 for rupture process of the 27 February 2010 Chile (MW 8.8) earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37,
634 L11301 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043379.
635 123. M. Moreno, M. Rosenau, O. Oncken, 2010 Maule earthquake slip correlates with pre-seismic
636 locking of Andean subduction zone. Nature 467, 198–202 (2010).
638 124. X. Tong, D. Sandwell, K. Luttrell, B. Brooks, M. Bevis, M. Shimada, et al., The 2010 Maule,
639 Chile earthquake: Downdip rupture limit revealed by space geodesy. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37,
640 L24311 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045805.
641 125. F. Pollitz, B. Brooks, X. Tong, M. G. Bevis, J. H. Foster, R. Bürgmann, et al., Coseismic slip
642 distribution of the February 27, 2010 MW 8.8 Maule, Chile earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38,
643 L09309 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047065.
644 126. C. Vigny, A. Socquet, S. Peyrat, J.-C. Ruegg, M. Métois, R. Madariaga, et al., The 2010 MW 8.8
645 Maule mega-thrust earthquake of central Chile, monitored by GPS. Science 332, 1417-1421
646 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204132.
18
647 127. Y. Fujii, K. Satake, Slip distribution and seismic moment of the 2010 and 1960 Chilean
648 earthquakes inferred from tsunami waveforms and coastal geodetic data. Pure Appl. Geophys.
649 170, 1493-1509 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0524-2.
650 128. K. D. Koper, A. R. Hutko, T. Lay, O. Sufri, Imaging short-period seismic radiation from the 27
651 February 2010 Chile (MW 8.8) earthquake by back-projection of P, PP, and PKIKP waves. J.
652 Geophys. Res: Solid Earth 117, B02308 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008576.
653 129. M. Moreno, D. Melnick, M. Rosenau, J. Baez, J. Klotz, O. Oncken, et al., Toward understanding
654 tectonic control on the MW 8.8 2010 Maule Chile earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 321-322,
655 152-165 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.01.006.
656 130. G. P. Hayes, E. Bergman, K. L Johnson, H. M. Benz, L. Brown, A. S. Meltzer, Seismotectonic
657 framework of the 2010 February 27 MW 8.8 Maule, Chile earthquake sequence. Geophys. J. Int.
658 195, 1034-1051 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt238.
659 131. Y. N. Lin, A. Sladen, F. Ortega-Culaciati, M. Simons, J.-P. Avouac, E. J. Fielding, et al.,
660 Coseismic and postseismic slip associated with the 2010 Maule earthquake, Chile: characterizing
661 the Arauco Peninsula barrier effect. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 118, 3142-3159 (2013).
662 https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50207.
663 132. H, Yue, T. Lay, L. Rivera, C. An, C. Vigny, X. Tong, J. C. Báez Soto, Localized fault slip to the
664 trench in the 2010 Maule, Chile Mw 8.8 earthquake from joint inversion of high-rate GPS,
665 teleseismic body waves, InSAR, campaign GPS, and tsunami observations. J. Geophys. Res. 119,
666 7786-7804 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB011340.
667 133. M. Yoshimoto, S. Watada, Y. Fujii, K. Satake, Source estimate and tsunami forecast from far-
668 field deep-ocean tsunami waveforms – The 27 February 2010 MW 8.8 Maule earthquake.
670 134. F. Romano, S. Lorito, T. Lay, A. Piatanesi, M. Volpe, S. Murphy, R. Tonini, Benchmarking the
671 optimal time alignment of tsunami waveforms in nonlinear joint inversions for the MW 8.8 2010
672 Maule (Chile) earthquake. Frontiers in Earth Science 8, 585429 (2020).
673 https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.585429.
674 135. A. Maksymowicz, C. D. Chadwell, J. Ruiz, A. M. Tréhu, E. Contreras-Reyes, W. Weinrebe, et
675 al., Coseismic seafloor deformation in the trench region during the MW 8.8 Maule megthrust
676 earthquake. Sci. Rep., 7, 45918 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45918.
677 136. A. Rietbrock, I. Ryder, G. Hayes, C. Haberland, D. Comte, S. Roecker, H. Lyon-Caen,
678 Aftershock seismicity of the 2010 Maule MW = 8.8, Chile, earthquake: Correlation between co-
679 seismic slip models and aftershock distribution? Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L08310 (2012).
680 https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051308.
19
681 137. J. C. Ruegg, J. C., A. Rudloff, C. Vigny, R. Madariaga, J. B. de Chabalier, J. Campos, E. Kausel,
682 S. Barrientos, D. Dimitrov, Interseismic strain accumulation measured by GPS in the seismic gap
683 between Constitución and Concepción in Chile. Phys. Earth Planet Inter. 175, 78-85 (2009).
684 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2008.02.015.
685 138. S. Lorito, F. Romano, S. Atzori, X. Tong, A. Avallone, J. McCloskey, et al., Limited overlap
686 between the seismic gap and coseismic slip of the great 2010 Chile earthquake. Nature
687 Geoscience 4, 173-177 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1073.
688 139. J. Bedford, M. Moreno, J. C. Baez, D. Lange, F. Tilmann, M. Rosenau, C. Vigny, A high-
689 resolution, time-variable afterslip model for the 2010 Maule MW = 8.8, Chile megathrust
690 earthquake. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 383, 26–36 (2013).
692 140. E. Klein, L. Fleitout, C. Vigny, J. D. Garaud, Afterslip and viscoelastic relaxation model inferred
693 rom the large-scale post-seismic deformation following the 2010 MW 8.8 Maule earthquake
694 (Chile). Geophys. J. Int. 205, 1455-1472 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw086.
695 141. D. Comte, A. Eisenberg, E. Lorac, M. Pardo, L. Ponce, R. Saragoni, S. K. Singh, G. Suarez, The
696 1985 central Chile earthquake: A repeat of previous great earthquakes in the region? Science 233,
697 449–453 (1986).
698 142. M. Cisternas, B. F. Atwater, F. Rorrejón, Y. Sawai, G. Machuca, M. Lagos, A. Eipert, C.
699 Youlton, I. Salgado, T. Kamataki, et al., Predecessors of the giant 1960 Chile earthquake. Nature
700 437, 404-407 (2005).
701 143. M. Cisternas, M. Carvajal, R. Wesson, L. L. Ely, N. Gorigoitia, Exploring the historical
702 earthquakes preceding the giant 1960 Chile earthquake in a time-dependent seismogenic zone.
703 Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 107, 2664-2675 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170103.
704 144. G. Plafker, J. Savage, Mechanism of the Chilean earthquake of May 21 and 22, 1960. Geol. Soc.
705 Am. Bull. 81, 1001-1030 (1970).
706 145. G. Plafker, Alaskan earthquake of 1964 and Chilean earthquake of 1960: Implications for arc
707 tectonics. J. Geophys. Res. 77, 901-925 (1972).
708 146. H. Kanamori, J. Cipar, Focal process of the great Chilean earthquake May 22, 1960. Phys. Earth
709 Planet Inter. 9, 128-136 (1974).
710 147. I. L. Cifuentes, P. G. Silver, Low-frequency source characteristics of the great 1960 Chilean
711 earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 94, 643-663 (1989).
712 148. S. Barrientos, S. Ward, The 1960 Chile earthquake: Inversion for slip distribution from surface
713 deformation. Geophys. J. Int. 103, 589-598 (1990).
20
714 149. M. S. Moreno, J. Bolte, J. Klotz, D. Melnick, Impact of megathrust geometry on inversion of
715 coseismic slip from geodetic data: application to the 1960 Chile earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett.
716 36, L16310 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039276.
717 150. H. Kanamori, L. Rivera, S. Lambotte, Evidence for a large strike-slip component during the 1960
718 Chilean earthquake. Geophys. J. Int., 218, 1-32 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggz113.
719 151. E. Garrett, I. Shennan, S. A. Woodroe, M. Cisternas, E. P. Hocking, P. Gulliver, Reconstructing
720 paleoseismic deformation, 2: 1000 years of great earthquakes at Chucalén, south central Chile.
721 Quat. Sci. Rev. 113, 112-122 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.10.010.
722 152. T. Dura, B. P. Horton, M. Cisternas, L. L. Ely, I Hong, A. R. Nelson, et al., Subduction zone slip
723 variability during the last millennium, south –central Chile. Quat. Sci. Rev 175, 112-137 (2017).
724 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.08.023. .
725
21
View publication stats

LN S.am - Eqhazard Pnas2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LN S.am - Eqhazard Pnas2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LN S.am - Eqhazard Pnas2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Updated concepts of seismic gaps and asperities to assess great earthquake

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · December 2022

Thorne Lay Stuart Nishenko

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Updated concepts of seismic gaps and asperities to assess great

coseismic fault sliding and strain

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 1 of 9

butions of large-slip regions during large earthquakes have been

2014 Iquique Mw 8.2

whether the underlying cause is material property variations (sed-

1995 Antofagasta Mw 8.0

iments/rock contacts), boundary roughness (seamounts/horst and

graben structures), or hydrologic variations (pore fluids), or some

C Central - Northern Chile

1960 1928 1922

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 3 of 9

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 5 of 9

Domain B Slow slip/Tremor

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 7 of 9

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 9 of 9

98 2007 Pisco, Peru

121 2001 Southern Peru

144 Northern Chile

155 2014 Iquique, Chile

189 North-Central Chile - Atacama

201 Central Chile

211 2015 Illapel, Chile

242 2010 Maule, Chile

270 Southern Chile

283 1. J.-M. Nocquet, J. C. Villegas-Lanza, M. Chlieh, P. A. Mothes, F. Rolandone, P. Jarrin et al.,

View publication stats

You might also like

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 1 of 9

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 3 of 9

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 5 of 9

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 7 of 9

PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 51 e2216843119 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216843119 9 of 9