↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 30%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 13 57%
Unspecified 4 17%
Chemistry 2 9%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,688,707
of 12,588,563 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#15,977
of 21,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,862
of 270,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#424
of 555 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,588,563 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 270,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 555 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.