Cargando…
The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis
The hypothesis that earthquake foreshocks have a prognostic value is challenged by simulations of the normal behaviour of seismicity, where no distinction between foreshocks, mainshocks and aftershocks can be made. In the former view, foreshocks are passive tracers of a tectonic preparatory process...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3924212/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24526224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep04099 |
_version_ | 1782303715710992384 |
---|---|
author | Mignan, Arnaud |
author_facet | Mignan, Arnaud |
author_sort | Mignan, Arnaud |
collection | PubMed |
description | The hypothesis that earthquake foreshocks have a prognostic value is challenged by simulations of the normal behaviour of seismicity, where no distinction between foreshocks, mainshocks and aftershocks can be made. In the former view, foreshocks are passive tracers of a tectonic preparatory process that yields the mainshock (i.e., loading by aseismic slip) while in the latter, a foreshock is any earthquake that triggers a larger one. Although both processes can coexist, earthquake prediction is plausible in the first case while virtually impossible in the second. Here I present a meta-analysis of 37 foreshock studies published between 1982 and 2013 to show that the justification of one hypothesis or the other depends on the selected magnitude interval between minimum foreshock magnitude m(min) and mainshock magnitude M. From this literature survey, anomalous foreshocks are found to emerge when m(min) < M − 3.0. These results suggest that a deviation from the normal behaviour of seismicity may be observed only when microseismicity is considered. These results are to be taken with caution since the 37 studies do not all show the same level of reliability. These observations should nonetheless encourage new research in earthquake predictability with focus on the potential role of microseismicity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3924212 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39242122014-02-14 The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis Mignan, Arnaud Sci Rep Article The hypothesis that earthquake foreshocks have a prognostic value is challenged by simulations of the normal behaviour of seismicity, where no distinction between foreshocks, mainshocks and aftershocks can be made. In the former view, foreshocks are passive tracers of a tectonic preparatory process that yields the mainshock (i.e., loading by aseismic slip) while in the latter, a foreshock is any earthquake that triggers a larger one. Although both processes can coexist, earthquake prediction is plausible in the first case while virtually impossible in the second. Here I present a meta-analysis of 37 foreshock studies published between 1982 and 2013 to show that the justification of one hypothesis or the other depends on the selected magnitude interval between minimum foreshock magnitude m(min) and mainshock magnitude M. From this literature survey, anomalous foreshocks are found to emerge when m(min) < M − 3.0. These results suggest that a deviation from the normal behaviour of seismicity may be observed only when microseismicity is considered. These results are to be taken with caution since the 37 studies do not all show the same level of reliability. These observations should nonetheless encourage new research in earthquake predictability with focus on the potential role of microseismicity. Nature Publishing Group 2014-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3924212/ /pubmed/24526224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep04099 Text en Copyright © 2014, Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareALike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ |
spellingShingle | Article Mignan, Arnaud The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis |
title | The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis |
title_full | The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis |
title_short | The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis |
title_sort | debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: a meta-analysis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3924212/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24526224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep04099 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mignanarnaud thedebateontheprognosticvalueofearthquakeforeshocksametaanalysis AT mignanarnaud debateontheprognosticvalueofearthquakeforeshocksametaanalysis |