Reproducibility of Remote Mapping of the 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Surface Ruptures
Abstract
We use multiple, independently produced surface-rupture maps of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence to test the reproducibility of surface-rupture map interpretation and completeness. The 4 July Mw 6.4 and 5 July Mw 7.1 earthquakes produced surface-rupture zones approximately 20 and 50 km in length, respectively. Three independent mappers with various backgrounds in active tectonics mapped the surface rupture from the postearthquake lidar data without knowledge from postearthquake field or geodetic observations. Visual comparisons of the three remote rupture maps show good agreement for scarps >50 cm in height. For features with less topographic expression, interpretations of the data vary more widely between mappers. Quantitative map comparisons range from 18% to 54% consistency between mapped lines with 1 m buffers. The percent overlap increases with buffer width, reflecting variance in line placement as well as differences in fault-zone interpretation. Overall, map similarity is higher in areas where the surface rupture was simpler and had more vertical offset than in areas with complex rupture patterns or little vertical offset. Fault-zone interpretation accounts for the most difference between maps, while line placement accounts for differences at the meter scale. In comparison to field observations, our remotely produced maps capture the principal rupture well but miss small features and geometric complexity. In general, lidar excels for the detection and measurement of vertical offsets in the landscape, and it is deficient for detecting lateral offset with little or no vertical motion.
Copyright and License
© 2024 Seismological Society of America.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC, contribution number 12698). SCEC is funded by National Science Foundation (NSF) Cooperative Agreement EAR‐1600087 and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) cooperative agreement G17AC00047. Funding for this project was provided by SCEC award number 20155 to Oskin. Rodriguez Padilla acknowledges support from NASA FINESST award 80NSSC21K1634. The authors thank Editor‐in‐Chief Allison Bent, the associate editors, and Reviewers Chelsea Scott and Alex Hatem for their thoughtful review and feedback on this article.
Data Availability
All data used in this study are presented in the figures and tables, or provided in the referenced material. The lidar imagery used to conduct the mapping is described in Hudnut et al. (2020b) and was accessed using OpenTopography (Hudnut et al., 2020a). The supplemental material to this article includes a GIS shapefile of the lines mapped by mappers 1, 2, and 3 and tables of values used in equations (1) and (2) to produce our analyses.
Supplemental Material
Supplementary text (PDF)
Supplementary lidar surface rupture maps shapefile (ZIP)
Files
Additional details
- Southern California Earthquake Center
- 20155
- National Science Foundation
- EAR‐1600087
- United States Geological Survey
- G17AC00047
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- 80NSSC21K1634
- Available
-
2023-10-13First Online
- Caltech groups
- Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
- Publication Status
- Published