Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Forearc seismogenesis in a weakly coupled subduction zone influenced by slab mantle fluids

Nature Geoscience volume 16, pages 822–827 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 09 October 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

The role of fluids in earthquake rupture is key to understanding seismic hazards, particularly at subduction zones. The Shumagin Gap, Alaska, is notable due to a paucity of large earthquake nucleation and weak coupling between the overriding and subducting plates. Fluids have been hypothesized to explain these observations, but the source of the fluids remains unclear. Here we present an image of the subsurface electrical resistivity derived from marine magnetotelluric data collected in the Shumagin segment. The model reveals an approximately 50-km-wide conductive (that is, fluid-rich) zone near the plate interface with fluids sourced from the dehydration of slab mantle (15–25 km beneath the crust–mantle boundary). We find that the July 2020 megathrust earthquake—which nucleated near the Semidi segment and propagated westwards into the Shumagin segment—only ruptured the conductive portion of the plate interface. This suggests that slab mantle fluids can influence the seismogenic zone by, for example, creating patches that are prone to dynamic rupture. In contrast, updip of the slip patch is simultaneously resistive and weakly coupled, suggesting that fluids alone are not responsible for weak coupling and that plate roughness plays a role. More broadly, these results suggest that slab mantle fluids could be an underappreciated fluid source in the water budgets of forearc subduction zones.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Map of the Shumagin segment study area.
Fig. 2: Magnetotelluric modelling results and interpretation.
Fig. 3: Hydrous mineral dehydration and slab P–T paths for the Shumagin segment.
Fig. 4: Conceptual model.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Magnetotelluric impedance data and inversion model files are available via Figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21751634.

Change history

References

  1. Faccenda, M. Water in the slab: a trilogy. Tectonophysics 614, 1–30 (2014).

  2. Saffer, D. M. & Tobin, H. J. Hydrogeology and mechanics of subduction zone forearcs: fluid flow and pore pressure. Annu Rev. Earth Planet Sci. 39, 157–186 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Abers, G. A., van Keken, P. E. & Wilson, C. R. Deep decoupling in subduction zones: observations and temperature limits. Geosphere 16, 1408–1424 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Heise, W. et al. Changes in electrical resistivity track changes in tectonic plate coupling. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 5029–5033 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Egbert, G. D. et al. Fluid transport and storage in the Cascadia forearc influenced by overriding plate lithology. Nat. Geosci. 15, 677–682 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chesley, C., Naif, S., Key, K. & Bassett, D. Fluid-rich subducting topography generates anomalous forearc porosity. Nature 595, 255–260 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Heise, W. et al. Electrical resistivity imaging of the inter-plate coupling transition at the Hikurangi subduction margin, New Zealand. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 524, 115710 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Noda, H. & Lapusta, N. Stable creeping fault segments can become destructive as a result of dynamic weakening. Nature 493, 518–521 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ichihara, H., Kasaya, T., Baba, K., Goto, T. & Yamano, M. 2D resistivity model around the rupture area of the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake (Mw 9.0). Earth Planets Space 75, 82 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Park, J. O., Naruse, H. & Bangs, N. L. Along-strike variations in the Nankai shallow décollement properties and their implications for tsunami earthquake generation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 7057–7064 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang, K. & Bilek, S. L. Invited review paper: fault creep caused by subduction of rough seafloor relief. Tectonophysics 610, 1–24 (2014).

  12. Davies, J., Sykes, L., House, L. & Jacob, K. Shumagin seismic gap, Alaska peninsula: history of great earthquakes, tectonic setting, and evidence for high seismic potential. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 3821–3855 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li, S. & Freymueller, J. T. Spatial variation of slip behavior beneath the Alaska Peninsula along Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 3453–3460 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jiang, Y., González, P. J. & Bürgmann, R. Subduction earthquakes controlled by incoming plate geometry: the 2020 M > 7.5 Shumagin, Alaska, earthquake doublet. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 584, 117447 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shillington, D. J. et al. Link between plate fabric, hydration and subduction zone seismicity in Alaska. Nat. Geosci. 8, 961–964 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wei, S. S. et al. Along-strike variations in intermediate-depth seismicity and arc magmatism along the Alaska Peninsula. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 563, 116878 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Li, J. et al. Downdip variations in seismic reflection character: Implications for fault structure and seismogenic behavior in the Alaska subduction zone. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 120, 7883–7904 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bécel, A. et al. Tsunamigenic structures in a creeping section of the Alaska subduction zone. Nat. Geosci. 10, 609–613 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shillington, D. J., Bécel, A. & Nedimović, M. R. Upper plate structure and megathrust properties in the Shumagin gap near the July 2020 M7.8 Simeonof event. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2021GL096974 (2022).

  20. Acquisto, T., Bécel, A., Singh, S. C. & Carton, H. Evidence of strong upper oceanic crustal hydration outboard the Alaskan and Sumatran subduction zones. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 127, e2022JB024751 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Li, J. et al. Connections between subducted sediment, pore-fluid pressure, and earthquake behavior along the Alaska megathrust. Geology 46, 299–302 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ye, L., Lay, T., Kanamori, H., Yamazaki, Y. & Cheung, K. F. The 22 July 2020 MW 7.8 Shumagin seismic gap earthquake: partial rupture of a weakly coupled megathrust. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 562, 116879 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Xiao, Z. et al. The deep Shumagin gap filled: kinematic rupture model and slip budget analysis of the 2020 Mw 7.8 Simeonof earthquake constrained by GNSS, global seismic waveforms, and floating InSAR. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 576, 117241 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhao, B. et al. Aseismic slip and recent ruptures of persistent asperities along the Alaska-Aleutian subduction zone. Nat. Commun. 13, 3098 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu, C., Lay, T., Xiong, X. & Wen, Y. Rupture of the 2020 Mw 7.8 earthquake in the Shumagin Gap inferred from seismic and geodetic observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL090806 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cordell, D. et al. Magnetotelluric data and resistivity model for Shumagin Gap, Alaska. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21751634 (2022).

  27. Naif, S., Key, K., Constable, S. & Evans, R. L. Water-rich bending faults at the Middle America Trench. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 2582–2597 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cordell, D., Unsworth, M. J., Díaz, D. & Reyes-Wagner, V. Fluid and melt pathways in the Central Chilean subduction zone near the 2010 Maule earthquake (35–36°S) as inferred from magnetotelluric data. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20, 1–18 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Guo, X., Yoshino, T. & Katayama, I. Electrical conductivity anisotropy of deformed talc rocks and serpentinites at 3GPa. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 188, 69–81 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Aretusini, S., Meneghini, F., Spagnuolo, E., Harbord, C. W. & Di Toro, G. Fluid pressurisation and earthquake propagation in the Hikurangi subduction zone. Nat. Commun. 12, 2481 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hatakeyama, K., Katayama, I., Hirauchi, K. I. & Michibayashi, K. Mantle hydration along outer-rise faults inferred from serpentinite permeability. Sci. Rep. 7, 13870 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Arnulf, A. F. et al. Upper-plate controls on subduction zone geometry, hydration and earthquake behaviour. Nat. Geosci. 15, 143–148 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cai, C., Wiens, D. A., Shen, W. & Eimer, M. Water input into the Mariana subduction zone estimated from ocean-bottom seismic data. Nature 563, 389–392 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Berman, R. G., Engi, M., Greenwood, H. J. & Brown, T. H. Derivation of internally-consistent thermodynamic data by the technique of mathematical programming: a review with application the system MgO-SiO2-H2O. J. Petrol. 27, 1331–1364 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hacker, B. R., Abers, G. A. & Peacock, S. M. Subduction factory 1. Theoretical mineralogy, densities, seismic wave speeds, and H2O contents. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 108, 2029 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Perrillat, J. P. et al. Kinetics of antigorite dehydration: a real-time X-ray diffraction study. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 236, 899–913 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Padrón-Navarta, J. A., Hermann, J., Garrido, C. J., López Sánchez-Vizcaíno, V. & Gómez-Pugnaire, M. T. An experimental investigation of antigorite dehydration in natural silica-enriched serpentinite. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 159, 25–42 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ulmer, P. & Trommsdorff, V. In Mantle Petrology: Field Observations and High Pressure Experimentation (A Tribute to Francis R. (Joe) Boyd) Special Publication No. 6 (eds Fei, Y. et al.), 259–281 (Geochemical Society, 1999).

  39. Wunder, B. & Schreyer, W. Antigorite: high-pressure stability in the system MgO-SiO,-H,O (MSH). Lithos 41, 213–227 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Peacock, S. M. Advances in the thermal and petrologic modeling of subduction zones. Geosphere 16, 1647–1663 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gutiérrez‐Aguilar, F., Hernández‐Uribe, D., Holder, R. M. & Condit, C. B. Fluid‐induced fault reactivation due to brucite + antigorite dehydration triggered the Mw 7.1 September 19th Puebla‐Morelos (Mexico) intermediate‐depth earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL100814 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pattison, D. R. M., de Capitani, C. & Gaidies, F. Petrological consequences of variations in metamorphic reaction affinity. J. Metamorph. Geol. 29, 953–977 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kohli, A. H. & Warren, J. M. Evidence for a deep hydrologic cycle on oceanic transform faults. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 125, e2019JB017751 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wright, N. M., Seton, M., Williams, S. E. & Müller, R. D. The Late Cretaceous to recent tectonic history of the Pacific Ocean basin. Earth Sci. Rev. 154, 138–173 (2016).

  45. Zack, T. & John, T. An evaluation of reactive fluid flow and trace element mobility in subducting slabs. Chem. Geol. 239, 199–216 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Guo, H. & Keppler, H. Electrical conductivity of NaCl-bearing aqueous fluids to 900 °C and 5 GPa. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 124, 1397–1411 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Korenaga, J. On the extent of mantle hydration caused by plate bending. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 457, 1–9 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Park, J. O. et al. Seismic reflection images of possible mantle-fluid conduits and basal erosion in the 2011 Tohoku earthquake rupture area. Front. Earth Sci. 9, 687382 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wiersberg, T., Hammerschmidt, S. B., Fuchida, S., Kopf, A. & Erzinger, J. Mantle-derived fluids in the Nankai Trough Kumano forearc basin. Progr. Earth Planet. Sci. 5, 1–15 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Abers, G. A. Three-dimensional inversion of regional P and S arrival times in the East Aleutians and sources of subduction zone gravity highs. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 4395–4412 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. USGS Earthquake Catalog 2010–2021 (Earthquake Hazards Program, United States Geological Survey, 2022); https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/earthquakes

  52. Horowitz, W. L., Steffy, D. A., Hoose, P. J. & Turner, R. F. Geologic Report for the Shumagin Planning Area, Western Gulf of Alaska, United States Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (1989).

  53. Hayes, G. P. et al. Slab2, a comprehensive subduction zone geometry model. Science 362, 58–61 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ekström, G., Nettles, M. & Dziewoński, A. M. The global CMT project 2004-2010: centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 200–201, 1–9 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ferrand, T. P. Seismicity and mineral destabilizations in the subducting mantle up to 6 GPa, 200 km depth. Lithos 334–335, 205–230 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Constable, S. Review paper: instrumentation for marine magnetotelluric and controlled source electromagnetic sounding. Geophys. Prospect. 61, 505–532 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Egbert, G. D. Robust multiple-station magnetotelluric data processing. Geophys. J. Int. 130, 475–496 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Key, K. MARE2DEM: a 2-D inversion code for controlled source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric data. Geophys. J. Int. 207, 571–588 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ryan, W. B. F. et al. Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) synthesis data set. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10, Q03014 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Naif, S., Key, K., Constable, S. & Evans, R. L. Melt-rich channel observed at the lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary. Nature 495, 356–359 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the captain and crew of RV Sikuliaq expedition SKQ201914S, the Scripps Marine EM Lab (C. Armerding, J. Lemire, J. Perez and J. Souders) and the EMAGE science party (T. Acquisto, J. Alvarez-Aramberri, J. Andrys, C. Armerding, E. Attias, G. Boren, B. Chase, C. Chesley, P. K. Miller, J. Perez, L. Wei and J. Zhu). This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers OCE-1654652 to K.K., S.C., S.N. and D.S., and OCE-1654619 to R.E.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Darcy Cordell

    Present address: Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

  2. Kerry Key

    Present address: BlueGreen Geophysics, LLC, Encinitas, CA, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Darcy Cordell & Samer Naif

  2. Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, USA

    Rob Evans

  3. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA

    Kerry Key & Anne Bécel

  4. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Steven Constable

  5. School of Earth and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

    Donna Shillington

Authors
  1. Darcy Cordell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samer Naif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rob Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kerry Key
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steven Constable
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Donna Shillington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anne Bécel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.K., R.E, S.C. and S.N. designed the experiment. K.K., S.C. and S.N. collected the data. S.N. processed the magnetotelluric responses. D.C. modelled the data, produced the figures and wrote the initial manuscript. All authors discussed the results and contributed to writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darcy Cordell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks Yasuo Ogawa, Bo Yang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Stefan Lachowycz and James Super, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Dimensionality analysis using polar diagrams.

Dimensionality analysis using polar diagrams for the profile data.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Phase tensor ellipse pseudo-section.

Phase tensor ellipse pseudo-section along profile. Blue circular ellipses denote 1-D structure, whereas blue or yellow ellipses denote 2-D or pseudo-2-D structure. Red ellipses indicate 3-D structures. The data included in the inversion is indicated by the red boxes.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Dimensionality analysis using phase tensor.

Dimensionality analysis for the profile data using phase tensor. (a) Rose histogram showing phase tensor geoelectric strike angles for raw, un- edited dataset at all frequencies indicating no coherent strike direction. (b) Rose histogram showing phase tensor geoelectric strike angles for edited dataset at all frequencies indicating coherent strike direction of approximately 75°E of N. (c) Histogram of phase tensor skew angles for un-edited data at all frequencies with long tails to ±80°. (d) Histogram of phase tensor skew angles for edited data set at all frequencies with tighter distribution near 0°.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Convergence for the preferred inversion.

Convergence for the preferred inversion run40. Top left: r.m.s. misfit as a function of iteration. Top right panel: model roughness. Bottom left panel: iteration time. Bottom right panel: Lagrange multiplier search at each iteration step.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Data fits for the 30th iteration of run40.

Data fits for the 30th iteration of run40 with an overall r.m.s. misfit of 1.00. Red dots and blue dots are TM and TE mode data, respectively. Curves are the inversion response. Error bars on the data points are smaller than the data marker.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Breakdown of data misfit as a function of site, period, and impedance component.

Breakdown of data misfit as a function of: site NW to SE (top), period (middle), and impedance component (bottom) for the 30th iteration of run40 with an overall r.m.s. misfit of 1.00.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Inversion model which enforces a no smoothing constraint across the plate interface.

The model converged to an r.m.s. of 1.0 after 86 iterations.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Full model space of the preferred inversion model.

Full model space of the preferred inversion model (run40) showing the deeper conductor at 100 km depth.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Sensitivity tests for features C2, C3, and C4.

Sensitivity tests for features: (A) C2, (B) C3, and (C) C4. Each feature is replaced with 100 Ωm anomaly and then a forward simulation is run.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Results of sensitivity tests.

Results of sensitivity tests showing r.m.s. misfit changes as a function of site (top), period (middle), and impedance component (bottom).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cordell, D., Naif, S., Evans, R. et al. Forearc seismogenesis in a weakly coupled subduction zone influenced by slab mantle fluids. Nat. Geosci. 16, 822–827 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01260-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01260-w

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing