USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

L.M. Jones

Publications and source records attributed to L.M. Jones.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2003

The 2002 Denali fault earthquake, Alaska: A large magnitude, slip-partitioned event

The MW (moment magnitude) 7.9 Denali fault earthquake on 3 November 2002 was associated with 340 kilometers of surface rupture and was the largest strike-slip earthquake in North America in almost 150 years. It illuminates earthquake mechanics and hazards of large strike-slip faults. It began with thrusting on the previously unrecognized Susitna Glacier fault, continued with right-slip on the Denali fault, then took a right step and continued with right-slip on the Totschunda fault. There is good correlation between geologically observed and geophysically inferred moment release. The earthquake produced unusually strong distal effects in the rupture propagation direction, including triggered seismicity.

Science↗
USGS2003

When and where the aftershock activity was depressed: Contrasting decay patterns of the proximate large earthquakes in southern California

Seismic quiescence has attracted attention as a possible precursor to a large earthquake. However, sensitive detection of quiescence requires accurate modeling of normal aftershock activity. We apply the epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model that is a natural extension of the modified Omori formula for aftershock decay, allowing further clusters (secondary aftershocks) within an aftershock sequence. The Hector Mine aftershock activity has been normal, relative to the decay predicted by the ETAS model during the 14 months of available data. In contrast, although the aftershock sequence of the 1992 Landers earthquake (M = 7.3), including the 1992 Big Bear earthquake (M = 6.4) and its aftershocks, fits very well to the ETAS up until about 6 months after the main shock, the activity showed clear lowering relative to the modeled rate (relative quiescence) and lasted nearly 7 years, leading up to the Hector Mine earthquake (M = 7.1) in 1999. Specifically, the relative quiescence occurred only in the shallow aftershock activity, down to depths of 5-6 km. The sequence of deeper events showed clear, normal aftershock activity well fitted to the ETAS throughout the whole period. We argue several physical explanations for these results. Among them, we strongly suspect aseismic slips within the Hector Mine rupture source that could inhibit the crustal relaxation process within "shadow zones" of the Coulomb's failure stress change. Furthermore, the aftershock activity of the 1992 Joshua Tree earthquake (M = 6.1) sharply lowered in the same day of the main shock, which can be explained by a similar scenario.

Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth↗
USGS1997

The seismic cycle in southern California: Precursor or response?

The seismicity rate (M ≥ 3.0) in southern California shows two cycles with periods of high activity (90 events/year), from 1945–1952 and 1969–1992, and lower activity (60–70 events /year) from 1952–1969 and 1992-present. Abrupt drops in the seismicity rate occur after the 1952 Kern County (M7.5) and the 1992 Landers (M7.3) earthquakes. The sudden increase in 1969 does not coincide with any major event but approximates the time needed to reaccumulate the seismic moment released in the 1952 earthquake. This temporal correlation with the preceding earthquake suggests that the seismic cycle (lower seismicity after a major earthquake and higher seismicity before the next major earthquake) should be interpreted as a response to the first earthquake rather than a precursor to the second. Southern California is now at a rate of seismicity as low as it experienced in the 1950s and 1960s.

Geophysical Research Letters↗
USGS1996

Earthquake prediction: The interaction of public policy and science

Earthquake prediction research has searched for both informational phenomena, those that provide information about earthquake hazards useful to the public, and causal phenomena, causally related to the physical processes governing failure on a fault, to improve our understanding of those processes. Neither informational nor causal phenomena are a subset of the other. I propose a classification of potential earthquake predictors of informational, causal, and predictive phenomena, where predictors are causal phenomena that provide more accurate assessments of the earthquake hazard than can be gotten from assuming a random distribution. Achieving higher, more accurate probabilities than a random distribution requires much more information about the precursor than just that it is causally related to the earthquake.

Conference Paper↗