Advertisement

Lessons and Questions from Thirty Years of Testing the Precursory Swarm Hypothesis

Abstract

In 1976 Frank Evison identified the first examples of earthquake swarms as long-term precursors of main-shock events, and thereby discovered the predictive scaling relations of long-term seismogenesis. From this time on, forecasting became the main focus of his research. After learning from an early attempt to communicate forecasts confidentially to government, he recognised the importance of hypothesis testing, and the precursory swarm hypothesis was cast in a form similar to a regional likelihood model. Tests of its performance relative to a stationary Poisson model at M ≥ 5.8 in New Zealand were begun in 1977. The initial hypothesis was that of a 1–1 relation between swarms and main-shock events. Following a study of the Japan catalogue, the generalised swarm hypothesis, in which multiple swarms were precursory to multiple main-shock events, was formulated. Tests of this form of the hypothesis at M ≥ 6.8 were initiated in a region of surveillance east of Japan in 1983. Eventually the generalised hypothesis was adopted in New Zealand also. In 1999, tests were begun in a region of Greece. In 1994–1995, several main-shock events favourable to the swarm hypothesis occurred, however four main-shock events near Arthur’s Pass, New Zealand, occurred without precursory swarms. Subsequent analysis showed that events called “quarms”, which were similar to swarms but more protracted in time, had preceded these events. This led to the proposal of a qualitative physical process to account for swarms, quarms and the predictive relations: A three-stage faulting process, in which a major crack induces aftercracks in its neighbourhood, just as a main shock induces aftershocks. An inference from this process was that the most general long-term precursor should be an increase of seismicity at similar magnitudes to the eventual aftershocks. It turned out that such a precursory scale increase nearly always occurs before major earthquakes and conforms to the predictive scaling relations. Setting aside the problem of identifying the scale increase before the major earthquake, the EEPAS (Every Earthquake a Precursor According to Scale) forecasting model was formulated. The success of this relatively weak model in forecasting major events in New Zealand, California, Japan and Greece shows that the predictive scaling relations are ubiquitous in earthquake catalogues. Although none of the formal tests of the swarm hypothesis were successful in their own terms, they were beneficial in identifying shortcomings in its formulation, thereby leading to improved understanding of long-term seismogenesis and a better forecasting model. Some puzzling aspects of the scaling relations are whether they vary regionally, and why the precursor area and aftershock area scale differently with magnitude. A more practical question is whether the EEPAS model can be strengthened, by making use of the clustering of some precursors in swarms and quarms, to bring us nearer to the original goal of forecasting individual major earthquakes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

References

  1. Adams, R.D. (1976), The Haicheng, China, Earthquake of 4 February 1975; the first successfully predicted major earthquake, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 4, 423–437.

  2. Aki, K. A probabilistic Synthesis of Precursory Phenomena, In: Earthquake Prediction––An International Review, Maurice Ewing series, 4, (Simpson and Richards, eds.) (AGU, Washington D.C. (1981)) pp. 566–575.

  3. Allen, C.R. (1976), Responsibilities in earthquake prediction, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 66, 2069–2074.

  4. Ben-Zion, Y. (2008), Collective behavior of earthquakes and faults: Continuum-discrete transitions, progressive evolutionary changes and different dynamic regimes, Rev. Geophys. 46(4), RG4006.

  5. Console, R., Rhoades, D.A., Murru, M., Evison, F.F., Papadimitriou, E.E., Karakostas, V.G. (2006), Comparative performance of time-invariant, long-range and short-range forecasting models on the earthquake catalogue of Greece, J. Geophys. Res. 111, B09304, doi:10.1029/2005JB004113.

  6. Evison, F.F. (1977a), Fluctuations of seismicity before major earthquakes, Nature 266, 710–712.

  7. Evison, F.F. (1977b), Precursory seismic sequences in New Zealand, New Zealand J. Geol. Geophys. 20, 129–141.

  8. Evison, F.F. (1977c), The precursory earthquake swarm, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 15, 19–23.

  9. Evison, F.F. (1978), Long-term seismic precursor to the 1968 Inangahua Earthquake, New Zealand, New Zealand J. Geol. Geophys. 21, 531–534.

  10. Evison, F.F. (1981), Multiple earthquake events at moderate-to-large magnitudes in Japan, J. Phys. Earth 29, 327–339.

  11. Evison, F.F. (1982), Generalised precursory swarm hypothesis, J. Phys. Earth 30, 155–170.

  12. Evison, F.F. Communication of earthquake predictions and warnings. In Earthquake Prediction: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earthquake Prediction, (Terra Scientific Publishing Company, Tokyo (1984)), pp. 937–946.

  13. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (1993), The precursory earthquake swarm in New Zealand: Hypothesis tests, New Zealand J. Geol. Geophys. 36, 51–60.

  14. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (1997), The precursory earthquake swarm in New Zealand: Hypothesis tests II, New Zealand J. Geol. Geophys. 40, 537–547.

  15. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (1998), Long-term seismogenic process for major earthquakes in subduction zones, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 108, 185–199.

  16. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (1999a), The precursory earthquake swarm and the inferred precursory quarm, New Zealand J. Geol. Geophys. 42, 229–236.

  17. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (1999b), The precursory earthquake swarm in Japan: Hypothesis test, Earth, Planets and Space 51, 1267–1277.

  18. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (2000), The precursory earthquake swarm in Greece, Annali di Geofisica 43, 991–1009.

  19. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (2001), Model of long-term seismogenesis, Annali di Geofisica 44, 81–93.

  20. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (2002), Precursory scale increase and long-term seismogenesis in California and Northern Mexico, Ann. Geophys. 45, 479–495.

  21. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (2004a), Demarcation and scaling of long-term seismogenesis, Pure Appl. Geophys. 161, 21–45.

  22. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (2004b), Long-term seismogenesis and self-organized criticality, Earth, Planets and Space 56, 749–760.

  23. Evison, F.F. and Rhoades, D.A. (2005), Multiple-mainshock events and long-term seismogenesis in Italy and New Zealand, New Zealand J. Geol. Geophys. 48, 523–536.

  24. Field, E.H. (2007), Overview of the Working Group for the Development of Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM), Seismol. Res. Lett. 78(1), 7–16.

  25. Geller, R.J., VAN: A critical evaluation. In A Critical Review of VAN, ed. J. Lighthill (World Scientific, Singapore (1996)), pp. 155–238.

  26. Geller, R.J., Jackson, D.D.,Kagan, Y.Y., and Mulargia, F. (1997), Earthquakes cannot be predicted, Science 275, 1616–1217.

  27. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (1984), Code of Practice for Earthquake Prediction, IUGG Chronicle 165, 115–124 (reprinted in Eos, 65, Feb. 14, 1984).

  28. Jackson, D.D. and Kagan, Y.Y. (1999), Testable earthquake forecasts for 1999, Seismol. Res. Lett. 70(4), 393–403.

  29. Jordan, T.H. (2006). Earthquake predictability, brick by brick, Seismol. Res. Lett. 77(10), 3–6.

  30. Main, I.G. (1996), Statistical physics, Seismogenesis, and seismic hazard, Rev. Geophys. 34, 433–462.

  31. Rhoades, D.A. and Evison, F.F. (1979), Long-range earthquake forecasting based on a single predictor, Geophys. J. Royal Astronom. Soc. 59, 43–56.

  32. Rhoades, D.A. and Evison, F.F. (1993), Long-range earthquake forecasting based on a single predictor with clustering, Geophys. J. Internat. 113, 371–381.

  33. Rhoades, D.A. and Evison, F.F. (2004), Long-range earthquake forecasting with every earthquake a precursor according to scale, Pure Appl. Geophys. 161, 47–72.

  34. Rhoades, D.A. and Evison, F.F. (2005), Test of the EEPAS forecasting model on the Japan Earthquake Catalogue, Pure Appl. Geophys., 162, 1271–1290.

  35. Rhoades, D.A. and Evison, F.F. (2006), The EEPAS forecasting model and the probability of moderate-to-large earthquakes in Central Japan, Tectonophysics 417, 119–130.

  36. Rikitake, T. (1975), Earthquake Precursors, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 65, 1133–1162.

  37. Rikitake, T. (1979), Classification of Earthquake Precursors, Tectonophysics 54, 293–309.

  38. Rikitake, T., Earthquake Forecasting and Warning, Center for Academic Publications Japan, (Kluwer (1982)), 402 pp.

  39. Rundle, J.B., Rundle, P.B., Klein, W., de sa Martins, J., Tiampo, K. F., Donnellan, A. and Kellogg, L.H. (2002), GEM plate boundary simulations for the plate boundary observatory: A program for understanding the physics of earthquakes on complex fault networks via observations, theory and numerical simulation, Pure Appl. Geophys. 159, 2357–2381.

  40. Utsu, T. (1961), A statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks, Geophys. Mag. 30, 521–605.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology under Programme Number CO5X0402 and by GNS Science Capability Funding. Thanks are extended to R. Robinson, M. Reyners and R. Console for helpful reviews of the manuscript.

Author information

Correspondence to David A. Rhoades.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rhoades, D.A. Lessons and Questions from Thirty Years of Testing the Precursory Swarm Hypothesis. Pure Appl. Geophys. 167, 629–644 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0071-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Seismogenesis
  • seismicity patterns
  • earthquake prediction