4.2 Article

Fault model of the 2007 Noto Hanto earthquake estimated from coseismic deformation obtained by the distribution of littoral organisms and GPS: Implication for neotectonics in the northwestern Noto Peninsula

Journal

EARTH PLANETS AND SPACE
Volume 60, Issue 9, Pages 903-913

Publisher

TERRA SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO
DOI: 10.1186/BF03352846

Keywords

Noto Hanto earthquake; uplift; midlittoral organism; geological structure; fault model; active fault

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate the coseismic vertical crustal movement along the northern and western coast of the Noto Peninsula caused by the Noto Hanto earthquake on March 25, 2007, from the distribution of supra-, mid- and infra-littoral organisms. The highest uplift of 44 cm is observed at Akakami and the maximum subsidence of 8 cm at Fukami. We construct a rectangular fault model with a uniform slip in elastic half-space using both the coseismic vertical displacement estimated from the distribution of these organisms and the coseismic crustal deformation obtained by GPS. The model shows a reverse fault with a right-lateral slip of 1.3 m in a 18.6 km x 14.5 km area. The seismic moment is 1.0 x 10(19) N m (M-W 6.6) using a rigidity of 30 GPa. The geometry of the source fault is consistent with the distribution of aftershocks and active faults, and the fault is restricted to the central area of the aftershock area. Relationships among the fault, the distribution of aftershocks, active faults, and geological blocks around the source area suggest that geological structures restrict the fault size of the earthquake. By considering an inclined altitudinal distribution of marine terraces and the coseismic vertical crustal deformation detected in this study, we estimate that the recurrence of earthquakes during the past 120 kyr would produce a vertical crustal deformation of similar to 12 m and the background tectonic uplift would reach similar to 28 m.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available