↓ Skip to main content

Back to full interseismic plate locking decades after the giant 1960 Chile earthquake

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Back to full interseismic plate locking decades after the giant 1960 Chile earthquake
Published in
Nature Communications, August 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-05989-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Melnick, Shaoyang Li, Marcos Moreno, Marco Cisternas, Julius Jara-Muñoz, Robert Wesson, Alan Nelson, Juan Carlos Báez, Zhiguo Deng

Abstract

Great megathrust earthquakes arise from the sudden release of energy accumulated during centuries of interseismic plate convergence. The moment deficit (energy available for future earthquakes) is commonly inferred by integrating the rate of interseismic plate locking over the time since the previous great earthquake. But accurate integration requires knowledge of how interseismic plate locking changes decades after earthquakes, measurements not available for most great earthquakes. Here we reconstruct the post-earthquake history of plate locking at Guafo Island, above the seismogenic zone of the giant 1960 (Mw = 9.5) Chile earthquake, through forward modeling of land-level changes inferred from aerial imagery (since 1974) and measured by GPS (since 1994). We find that interseismic locking increased to ~70% in the decade following the 1960 earthquake and then gradually to 100% by 2005. Our findings illustrate the transient evolution of plate locking in Chile, and suggest a similarly complex evolution elsewhere, with implications for the time- and magnitude-dependent probability of future events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 32 50%
Engineering 3 5%
Chemistry 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 22 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,951,194
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#23,650
of 47,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,731
of 334,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#734
of 1,448 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 47,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,448 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.