Vertical Postseismic Deformation of the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

The 2019 Ridgecrest conjugate Mw6.4 and Mw7.1 events resulted in several meters of strike‐slip and dip‐slip along an intricate rupture, extending from the surface down to 15 km. Now with >2 years of post‐rupture observations, we utilize these results to better understand vertical postseismic deformation from the Ridgecrest sequence and illuminate the emerging significance of vertical earthquake cycle deformation data. We determine the cumulative vertical displacement observed by the continuous GNSS network since Ridgecrest, which requires additional time series analyses to adequately resolve vertical deformation compared to the horizontal. Using a Maxwell‐type viscoelastic relaxation model, with a best fit time‐averaged asthenosphere viscosity of 4e17 Pa·s and a laterally heterogeneous lithosphere, we find that viscoelastic relaxation accounts for a majority of the cumulative vertical deformation at Ridgecrest and strongly controls far‐field observations in all north‐east‐up components. The viscoelastic model alone generally underpredicts deformation from GNSS and the remaining nonviscoelastic displacement is most prominent in the horizontal near‐field (−16 to 19 mm), revealing a deformation pattern matching the coseismic observations. This suggests that multiple deformation mechanisms are contributing to Ridgecrest's postseismic displacement, where afterslip likely dominates the near‐field while viscoelastic relaxation controls the far‐field. Similar deformation at individual GNSS stations has been observed for past earthquakes and additionally reveals long‐term transient viscosity over several years. Moreover, the greater temporal and spatial resolution of the GNSS array for Ridgecrest will help resolve the evolution of deformation for the entire network of observations as regional postseismic deformation persists for the next several years.

[1]  J. Avouac,et al.  Rheological implications of post-seismic deformation following the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquakes , 2021 .

[2]  D. Sandwell,et al.  Seismic Moment Accumulation Response to Lateral Crustal Variations of the San Andreas Fault System , 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth.

[3]  Bingquan Han,et al.  Co-Seismic Inversion and Post-Seismic Deformation Mechanism Analysis of 2019 California Earthquake , 2021, Remote. Sens..

[4]  A. Moore,et al.  Atmospheric pressure loading in GPS positions: dependency on GPS processing methods and effect on assessment of seasonal deformation in the contiguous USA and Alaska , 2020, Journal of Geodesy.

[5]  Y. Bock,et al.  Surface deformation associated with fractures near the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence , 2020, Science.

[6]  Y. Ben‐Zion,et al.  Variations of Earthquake Properties Before, During, and After the 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest, CA, Earthquake , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[7]  E. al.,et al.  Thin crème brûlée rheological structure for the Eastern California Shear Zone , 2020, Geology.

[8]  Z. Zhan,et al.  Multifault Models of the 2019 Ridgecrest Sequence Highlight Complementary Slip and Fault Junction Instability , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[9]  Y. Hsu,et al.  Heterogeneous Power‐Law Flow With Transient Creep in Southern California Following the 2010 El Mayor‐Cucapah Earthquake , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth.

[10]  R. Bürgmann,et al.  Rupture Process of the 2019 Ridgecrest, California Mw 6.4 Foreshock and Mw 7.1 Earthquake Constrained by Seismic and Geodetic Data , 2020 .

[11]  K. Hudnut,et al.  Rapid Geodetic Observations of Spatiotemporally Varying Postseismic Deformation Following the Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence: The U.S. Geological Survey Response , 2020 .

[12]  T. Herring,et al.  Survey and Continuous GNSS in the Vicinity of the July 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquakes , 2020, Seismological Research Letters.

[13]  D. Sandwell,et al.  Coseismic Displacements and Surface Fractures from Sentinel-1 InSAR: 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquakes , 2020 .

[14]  Kinematics of Fault Slip Associated with the 4–6 July 2019 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquake Sequence , 2020, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[15]  S. Wei,et al.  Slip Complementarity and Triggering between the Foreshock, Mainshock, and Afterslip of the 2019 Ridgecrest Rupture Sequence , 2020, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[16]  E. Hauksson,et al.  Seismicity, Stress State, and Style of Faulting of the Ridgecrest-Coso Region from the 1930s to 2019: Seismotectonics of an Evolving Plate Boundary Segment , 2020, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[17]  Xin Wang,et al.  Seismotectonics and Fault Geometries of the 2019 Ridgecrest Sequence: Insight From Aftershock Moment Tensor Catalog Using 3‐D Green's Functions , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth.

[18]  R. Bennett,et al.  Assessing Long‐Term Postseismic Transients From GPS Time Series in Southern California , 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth.

[19]  Yuqing Wang,et al.  Orthogonal Fault Rupture and Rapid Postseismic Deformation Following 2019 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquake Sequence Revealed From Geodetic Observations , 2020, Geophysical Research Letters.

[20]  Oliver L. Stephenson,et al.  Surface Deformation Related to the 2019 Mw 7.1 and 6.4 Ridgecrest Earthquakes in California from GPS, SAR Interferometry, and SAR Pixel Offsets , 2020, Seismological Research Letters.

[21]  Roland Bürgmann,et al.  Co- and Early Postseismic Deformation Due to the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence Constrained by Sentinel-1 and COSMO-SkyMed SAR Data , 2020, Seismological Research Letters.

[22]  Timothy E. Dawson,et al.  Airborne Lidar and Electro-Optical Imagery along Surface Ruptures of the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence, Southern California , 2019 .

[23]  D. Sandwell,et al.  Assessing the Sensitivity of Earthquake Cycle Vertical Deformation to Spatially Variable Elastic Plate Thickness , 2019 .

[24]  Gavin P. Hayes,et al.  The July 2019 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquake Sequence: Kinematics of Slip and Stressing in Cross‐Fault Ruptures , 2019, Geophysical Research Letters.

[25]  Y. Bock,et al.  Transient Deformation in California From Two Decades of GPS Displacements: Implications for a Three‐Dimensional Kinematic Reference Frame , 2019, Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth.

[26]  A. Gualandi,et al.  Post-large earthquake seismic activities mediated by aseismic deformation processes , 2019 .

[27]  E. Fielding,et al.  Inferred rheological structure and mantle conditions from postseismic deformation following the 2010 Mw 7.2 El Mayor-Cucapah Earthquake , 2018 .

[28]  David T. Sandwell,et al.  Maxwell: A semi-analytic 4D code for earthquake cycle modeling of transform fault systems , 2018, Comput. Geosci..

[29]  G. Blewitt,et al.  Uplift of the Western Transverse Ranges and Ventura Area of Southern California: A Four‐Technique Geodetic Study Combining GPS, InSAR, Leveling, and Tide Gauges , 2018 .

[30]  S. Owen,et al.  Mechanical models favor a ramp geometry for the Ventura‐pitas point fault, California , 2017 .

[31]  S. Barbot,et al.  Contribution of viscoelastic flow in earthquake cycles within the lithosphere‐asthenosphere system , 2016 .

[32]  Geoffrey Blewitt,et al.  GPS Imaging of vertical land motion in California and Nevada: Implications for Sierra Nevada uplift , 2016, Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth.

[33]  T. Hines,et al.  Rheologic constraints on the upper mantle from 5 years of postseismic deformation following the El Mayor‐Cucapah earthquake , 2016 .

[34]  D. Sandwell,et al.  The vertical fingerprint of earthquake cycle loading in southern California , 2016 .

[35]  Xiaohua Xu,et al.  Refining the shallow slip deficit , 2016 .

[36]  Richard A. Bennett,et al.  Assessing long‐term postseismic deformation following the M7.2 4 April 2010, El Mayor‐Cucapah earthquake with implications for lithospheric rheology in the Salton Trough , 2015 .

[37]  J. Avouac,et al.  Postseismic Deformation Following the 2010 $$M = 7.2$$M=7.2 El Mayor-Cucapah Earthquake: Observations, Kinematic Inversions, and Dynamic Models , 2015, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[38]  Duncan Carr Agnew,et al.  Ongoing drought-induced uplift in the western United States , 2014, Science.

[39]  D. Sandwell,et al.  Vertical crustal displacement due to interseismic deformation along the San Andreas fault: Constraints from tide gauges , 2014 .

[40]  G. Blewitt,et al.  Uplift and seismicity driven by groundwater depletion in central California , 2014, Nature.

[41]  Felix W. Landerer,et al.  Seasonal variation in total water storage in California inferred from GPS observations of vertical land motion , 2014 .

[42]  David T. Sandwell,et al.  El Mayor‐Cucapah (Mw 7.2) earthquake: Early near‐field postseismic deformation from InSAR and GPS observations , 2014 .

[43]  Michael Bevis,et al.  Trajectory models and reference frames for crustal motion geodesy , 2014, Journal of Geodesy.

[44]  C. Pluhar,et al.  Kinematics of the west-central Walker Lane: Spatially and temporally variable rotations evident in the Late Miocene Stanislaus Group , 2013 .

[45]  Y. Fialko,et al.  On the effects of thermally weakened ductile shear zones on postseismic deformation , 2013 .

[46]  Remko Scharroo,et al.  Generic Mapping Tools: Improved Version Released , 2013 .

[47]  R. Dill,et al.  Numerical simulations of global‐scale high‐resolution hydrological crustal deformations , 2013 .

[48]  Simon D. P. Williams,et al.  Fast error analysis of continuous GNSS observations with missing data , 2013, Journal of Geodesy.

[49]  Fred F. Pollitz,et al.  Illumination of rheological mantle heterogeneity by the M7.2 2010 El Mayor‐Cucapah earthquake , 2012 .

[50]  Sylvain Barbot,et al.  Evidence for postseismic deformation of the lower crust following the 2004 Mw6.0 Parkfield earthquake , 2011 .

[51]  Sylvain Barbot,et al.  A unified continuum representation of post-seismic relaxation mechanisms: semi-analytic models of afterslip, poroelastic rebound and viscoelastic flow , 2010 .

[52]  Mian Liu,et al.  Inception of the eastern California shear zone and evolution of the Pacific‐North American plate boundary: From kinematics to geodynamics , 2010 .

[53]  Yuri Fialko,et al.  Interseismic strain accumulation and the earthquake potential on the southern San Andreas fault system , 2006, Nature.

[54]  D. Sandwell,et al.  A three-dimensional semianalytic viscoelastic model for time-dependent analyses of the earthquake cycle , 2004 .

[55]  Roland Bürgmann,et al.  Evidence of power-law flow in the Mojave desert mantle , 2004, Nature.

[56]  S. Acinas,et al.  Evidence of power-law flow in the Mojave desert mantle , 2004 .

[57]  E. Hearn,et al.  What can GPS data tell us about the dynamics of post-seismic deformation? , 2003 .

[58]  David T. Sandwell,et al.  The 1999 (Mw 7.1) Hector Mine, California, Earthquake: Near-Field Postseismic Deformation from ERS Interferometry , 2002 .

[59]  Paul A. Rosen,et al.  Transient strain accumulation and fault interaction in the eastern California shear zone , 2001 .

[60]  F. Pollitz,et al.  Mantle Flow Beneath a Continental Strike-Slip Fault: Postseismic Deformation After the 1999 Hector Mine Earthquake , 2001, Science.

[61]  Timothy H. Dixon,et al.  Refined kinematics of the Eastern California shear zone from GPS observations, 1993-1998 , 2001 .

[62]  Fred F. Pollitz,et al.  Gravitational viscoelastic postseismic relaxation on a layered spherical Earth , 1997 .

[63]  Yehuda Bock,et al.  Postseismic deformation following the Landers earthquake, California, 28 June 1992 , 1994, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[64]  Y. Okada Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space , 1992, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[65]  Chris Marone,et al.  On the mechanics of earthquake afterslip , 1991 .

[66]  John R. Rice,et al.  Crustal Earthquake Instability in Relation to the Depth Variation of Frictional Slip Properties , 1986 .

[67]  Amos Nur,et al.  Postseismic Viscoelastic Rebound , 1974, Science.