Space geodetic evidence for rapid strain rates in the New Madrid seismic zone of central USA

Hydrologically-driven crustal stresses and seismicity in the New Madrid Seismic Zone

The degree to which short-term non-tectonic processes, either natural and anthropogenic, influence the occurrence of earthquakes in active tectonic settings or ‘stable’ plate interiors, remains a subject of debate. Recent work in plate-boundary regions demonstrates the capacity for long-wavelength changes in continental water storage to produce observable surface deformation, induce crustal stresses and modulate seismicity rates. Here we show that a significant variation in the rate of microearthquakes in the intraplate New Madrid Seismic Zone at annual and multi-annual timescales coincides with hydrological loading in the upper Mississippi embayment. We demonstrate that this loading, which results in geodetically observed surface deformation, induces stresses within the lithosphere that, although of small amplitude, modulate the ongoing seismicity of the New Madrid region. Correspondence between surface deformation, hydrological loading and seismicity rates at both annual and multi-annual timescales indicates that seismicity variations are the direct result of elastic stresses induced by the water load.

Large-scale changes in continental water storage have been shown to have an impact on seismicity. Here, the authors show that variation in the rate of microearthquakes in the New Madrid Seismic Zone coincides with hydrological loading in the Mississippi embayment at both annual and multi-annual timescales.

Seismology: tectonic strain in plate interiors?

It is not fully understood how or why the inner areas of tectonic plates deform, leading to large, although infrequent, earthquakes. Smalley et al. offer a potential breakthrough by suggesting that surface deformation in the central United States accumulates at rates comparable to those across plate boundaries. However, we find no statistically significant deformation in three independent analyses of the data set used by Smalley et al., and conclude therefore that only the upper bounds of magnitude and repeat time for large earthquakes can be inferred at present.