Juxtaposition of Shallow Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity and Deep Tectonic Locking in the Qiaojia-Dongchuan Seismic Gap

Guangyao Yin; Huai Zhang; Pei He; Shuang Yi; S. Mostafa Mousavi; Yaolin Shi; Yicun Guo; Yuxin Zhou

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Juxtaposition of Shallow Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity and Deep Tectonic Locking in the Qiaojia-Dongchuan Seismic Gap

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that shallow earthquake swarms at Baihetan are masking a deep, locked fault that is steadily loading toward a possible major rupture.

desk verdict Good data, unproven headline: the depth-dependent b-value contrast needs completeness corrections before the decoupling story holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19606 v1 pith:T4ENPHS4 submitted 2026-07-21 physics.geo-ph cs.AI

Yuxin Zhou , Huai Zhang , S. Mostafa Mousavi , Guangyao Yin , Pei He , Yicun Guo , Shuang Yi , Yaolin Shi This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.geo-phcs.AI

keywords reservoir-triggeredseismicityseismicgapb-valueCoulombstressXiaojiangFaultBaihetanReservoirdensearrayearthquakehazard

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the world's second-largest hydropower reservoir, Baihetan on the Jinsha River, is generating shallow fluid-driven earthquakes while a deeper segment of the Xiaojiang Fault remains locked and steadily accumulates tectonic strain. If true, the visible shallow swarm activity is not releasing the fault's stored energy—it is masking a growing deep hazard in a recognized seismic gap. The authors build a high-resolution catalog of 5,219 events from a 200-station array and use depth-dependent b-values, Coulomb stress modeling, and cross-section imaging to argue for this vertical decoupling. The value for a general reader is a concrete mechanism by which human-made reservoirs can both trigger small quakes and hide a larger, silently loading rupture source.

What carries the argument

The central object is the depth-resolved Gutenberg–Richter b-value—the slope of the earthquake magnitude–frequency distribution, used here as a stress meter. The authors combine b-value mapping with Coulomb Failure Stress rate modeling (from GNSS-derived strain rates in a layered viscoelastic model) and a rate-and-state triggering probability formula. The load-bearing pattern is the b-value contrast: high (above 1.0) in the shallow swarm-like cluster near the reservoir, low (below 0.8) in the 15–20 km belt interpreted as a locked asperity—a mechanically strong patch that stays pinned while surrounding rock creeps.

What would settle it

Compute the magnitude of completeness separately by depth bin and apply bootstrap resampling to the depth-binned b-values. If the high-shallow/low-deep b-value contrast disappears once depth-dependent completeness and sampling error are accounted for, the vertical decoupling claim loses its main statistical support. Independently, geodetic or InSAR evidence of aseismic creep along the 15–20 km seismicity belt would contradict the locked-asperity interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Qiaojia–Dongchuan seismic gap is vertically decoupled: shallow seismicity (high b-value above 1.0, swarm-like, peaking with reservoir impoundment) is reservoir-triggered and releases little moment, while a 15–20 km deep, low-b-value (below 0.8) belt outlines a locked asperity on the Xiaojiang Fault that is accumulating Coulomb stress at 7–10 kPa per year. The authors infer roughly 3 MPa of stress accumulated since the 1733 earthquake, a value within the typical stress-drop range of large strike-slip events, and point to a deficit of M≥4 events as an unclosed moment budget. They conclude that the gap is in a critical state with elevated rupture potential

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the observed decrease in b-value with depth is a real physical signal rather than an artifact of uneven detection capability or small depth-bin sample sizes; the paper itself notes that monthly subsets fall below 100 events and does not supply depth-dependent completeness or bootstrap uncertainties for the depth trend.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Shallow induced seismicity near Baihetan should not be read as release of tectonic stress; the deep fault continues loading.
The Qiaojia–Dongchuan segment has accumulated on the order of 3 MPa since 1733, placing it in the typical stress-drop range for a major strike-slip earthquake.
The deficit of M≥4 events relative to Gutenberg–Richter scaling implies an unclosed moment budget that may be paid by future earthquakes.
Reservoir-fault systems elsewhere can be assessed with the same depth-separated, b-value-plus-Coulomb-stress framework to separate induced from tectonic hazard.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the vertical decoupling is real, standard practice using shallow microseismicity as a proxy for stress release is systematically biased; hazard models should separate depth layers before concluding that impoundment has relieved a fault.
The paper's 50–60 degree dipping structure, if confirmed by local tomography, would imply that a future rupture could either be arrested by a geometric barrier or cascade across two fault planes; the authors leave that fork open, which is a key uncertainty for magnitude forecasting.
A testable extension is to monitor post-2023 seismicity after the reservoir stabilizes: the shallow swarm should decay while the deep low-b-value belt persists or sharpens if the locking-and-loading model is correct.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look, but the headline decoupling claim doesn't rest on evidence solid enough to carry it. The depth-dependent b-value contrast — shallow high b, deep low b — is the load-bearing observation, and the paper never shows that it survives depth-dependent completeness and sample-size corrections. The authors themselves concede that monthly b-value fluctuations could be stochastic; the same concession applies to the depth bins, and they don't address it there.

What is genuinely new is the catalog: 5,219 events, relocated with HypoDD, from a 200+ station dense array during the peak impoundment of Baihetan. That's a real asset. The ensemble AI picking and the Coulomb stress modeling are applied carefully, and the CFS rate model is checked against GNSS velocities, which is more than many such papers bother to do. The Discussion is honest about not having performed the r~√t diffusion test and about the ambiguity of the temporal correlation.

The soft spot is Fig. 3F. They report an overall Mc of ML 1.29 but no depth-dependent Mc. For a surface array, detection probability decays with source depth, so Mc almost certainly increases. MAXC is especially sensitive to underestimated Mc, and truncating the small-magnitude end at depth will bias b downward. On top of that, the deeper depth bins are likely well below the authors' own N>500 reliability threshold. Bootstrap uncertainties for the depth-binned b-values are not given. So the sharp drop to <0.8 at 15–20 km, the 'locked asperity,' and everything built on it — the decoupling, the masking, the critical state — is not established. It may be true; the paper just hasn't shown it.

Two smaller overreads: the ~3 MPa accumulated stress since 1733 is a straightforward extrapolation of a modelled CFS rate, and the 'critical state' language goes beyond what a one-year catalog can support. The dipping structure at 10–16 km is plausible but the authors themselves say it needs tomography. None of this is fatal; it's just more than the data currently license.

For a reader in reservoir-triggered seismicity or seismic-gap hazard, the catalog and the conceptual decoupling model are worth engaging with. It deserves serious peer review, but not acceptance in this form. The referee ask should be concrete: depth-dependent Mc, bootstrap confidence intervals on the depth-binned b-values, and either a pre-impoundment baseline or an explicit argument for why the depth trend isn't a detection artifact.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a dense-array microseismic catalog (5,219 events, August 2022–March 2023) from the Qiaojia–Dongchuan seismic gap, which hosts the Baihetan Reservoir. The authors report depth-dependent b-values: shallow events show high b-values (≈1.0) interpreted as fluid-driven reservoir-triggered seismicity, while deep events (15–20 km) show low b-values (<0.8) interpreted as a locked asperity on the Xiaojiang Fault. A Coulomb stress rate model from GNSS velocities yields peak rates of ~10 kPa/yr; combining this with rate-and-state triggering probabilities and a deficit of M≥4 events, the paper concludes that the gap is in a critical state with elevated rupture potential. A previously unrecognized dipping structure (dip 50°–60°, 10–16 km depth) is inferred from cross-sections and interpreted as evidence of compound fault kinematics. The central claim is that shallow induced seismicity masks deep tectonic strain accumulation.

Significance. If the decoupling model is correct, it has global implications for seismic hazard assessments in reservoir-fault systems, suggesting that shallow induced seismicity can conceal accumulating deep tectonic strain. The catalog is a strong empirical contribution: it is an order-of-magnitude larger than the standard catalog, uses a reproducible ensemble deep-learning workflow, and the code and waveforms are publicly archived. The Coulomb stress model is validated against independent GNSS velocities, which is a genuine strength. However, the central decoupling and critical-state inferences rest on depth-dependent b-values whose statistical robustness is not established; the authors themselves acknowledge that short-window b-values may be stochastically variable. The paper would be significantly strengthened—and the central claim made defensible—by adding depth-dependent magnitude-of-completeness analysis and bootstrap uncertainties, and by replacing the circular correlation shown in Fig. 5D with an independent test.

major comments (4)

The depth-dependent b-value profile is the principal evidence for the shallow fluid-driven / deep locked-asperity decoupling. The paper reports only an overall Mc of ML 1.29 and gives no depth-dependent Mc. Detection capability of a surface array decays with depth, so Mc is likely to increase with depth; MAXC is known to be sensitive to underestimation of Mc. In that case the low b-values at 15–20 km could be an artifact of incomplete detection of small events rather than a physical locked-asperity signature. The Methods section describes a moving-window sample size of 500 events and bootstrap uncertainties only for Mc, not for the depth-binned b-values shown in Fig. 3F. The Discussion explicitly concedes that similar fluctuations 'could be attributable to stochastic variance rather than physical stress changes' (Discussion, 1st bullet under 'Statistical Limitations'). This caveat must b
The paper states that 'statistical significance analysis (R² = 0.55, p < 0.001) reveals a strong correlation between seismicity and CFS rate evolution.' This correlation is not an independent empirical test: the triggering probability P in Eq. (4) is a deterministic monotonic function of the same ΔCFS values plotted on the x-axis of Fig. 5D. The R² therefore mostly measures how well the chosen rate-and-state parameterization fits its own input, not whether earthquake locations correlate with stress. The independent element of the validation is the statement that 93.7% of events fall in positive high-CFS areas, which should be quantified directly (e.g., event density or hypocentral counts against CFS rate), with uncertainties accounting for location errors. As written, the current validation is circular.
The Coulomb stress rate and the derived 'critical state' inference depend on parameters that are not well constrained by the present data: the coefficient of friction μ′ (assumed 0.4) and the pore-pressure decay radius (5 km) in the 'highly simplified' pore-pressure model. The GNSS validation in Fig. 7 is for the strain/stress field, not for the pore-pressure contribution. The paper uses a single set of parameter values to assert that the fault has accumulated 'approximately 3 MPa' since 1733. A sensitivity analysis (e.g., omitting pore pressure, varying decay radius over a plausible range, varying μ′) is necessary to establish that the 7–10 kPa/yr rates and the 3 MPa accumulated stress are robust. Without this, the 'critical state' conclusion is a scenario, not a demonstrated result.
The accumulated-stress argument that the gap is 'in a critical state' uses a constant annual rate multiplied by time since 1733. This ignores the regional rupture history (the 1789 M7.0, 1833 M8.0, and 1850 M7.5 events are mentioned in the Introduction) and stress transfer from those events. The paper should either defend the assumption that the Qiaojia–Dongchuan segment has been continuously loading since 1733 without any significant rupture, or present the 3 MPa estimate as a simple upper bound. Similarly, the 'event deficit' near M4.0 inferred from the FMD curve (Fig. 3B) could be an artifact of magnitude binning or local Mc; a synthetic-catalog test or explicit Mc(ML) analysis is needed before this deficit is used as evidence of unclosed moment budget.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract; Results, Fig. 3F] The abstract says 'deep seismicity (20 km)' but the text and figures consistently use '15–20 km'. This should be harmonized.
[Methods, Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) is dimensionally unclear as written: R(t) is defined with a multiplicative γ but no units are stated; in the rate-and-state seismicity-rate formalism the prefactor usually has units of rate. Please clarify the notation and define all symbols, including the distinction between tε and the characteristic relaxation time set to 6 and 10 years in the same sentence.
[Methods, Frequency-Magnitude Analysis] The Methods state that a moving window of 500 events is used for b-values and that bootstrap is used for Mc uncertainty, but the paper does not report the effective number of events in the depth bins of Fig. 3F or the temporal bins of Fig. 5F. Adding these counts, alongside the depth-dependent Mc, would allow readers to apply the authors' own N>500 criterion.
[Discussion, Potential Induced Seismicity] The discussion of the March 2023 secondary peak as delayed pore-pressure diffusion is appropriately cautious ('formal verification through r~√t has not been performed'), but the abstract and conclusions state the fluid-driven interpretation more definitively than the caveats in the Discussion support. Please temper the wording or provide the missing diffusion analysis.
[Results, Fault Structure] The inferred dipping structure with dip 50°–60° at 10–16 km depth is based on visual inspection of cross-sections. The paper should quantify the uncertainty in the dip estimate or at least note that relocation errors and velocity-model uncertainty can bias apparent dipping alignments. As written, 'previously unrecognized' overstates confidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central results derive from independent data with acknowledged statistical caveats.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The b-value depth profile (Fig. 3F) is computed from the newly built AI catalog with ZMAP using MAXC and bootstrap; it is not fitted to the 'locked asperity' conclusion. CFS rates are computed from published GNSS velocities via a layered Maxwell model, with fault geometry from literature; the triggering probabilities follow a rate-state formula with literature parameter ranges, and the paper displays sensitivity to those parameters (Fig. S3). The RTS interpretation is explicitly hedged ('this temporal correlation alone does not constitute definitive proof of a diffusive mechanism'; 'a formal verification through r ~ √t analysis has not been performed'). The main statistical caveat is acknowledged in the Discussion ('observed fluctuations... could be attributable to stochastic variance rather than physical stress changes'), which weakens the empirical claim but is not a circularity. Self-citations (Zhou et al. 2022; Zhou et al. 2025; Zhang et al. 2025) are used for context/model inputs, not to assert the target conclusion, and none functions as a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that smuggles the result in. Therefore no circular step is exhibited; score reflects only minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of modeling choices (Coulomb friction, pore-pressure simplification, rate-state parameters) and interpretive assumptions (b-value as stress proxy, seismicity belt as fault trace). Most are cited from prior literature, but they are not independently validated within this paper.

free parameters (6)

Coefficient of friction (μ′) in Coulomb stress model = 0.4
Assumed in Eq. (3); directly scales the CFS magnitude and hence the 10 kPa/yr accumulation claim.
Pore-pressure decay radius = 5 km
Simplified exponential decay model for ΔPp from Menggu well; no site-specific calibration.
Direct effect parameter (Aσ) in rate-and-state model = 0.3 MPa
Chosen from the experimental range 0.0012–0.6 MPa (Dieterich & Kilgore, 1996); strongly controls triggering probabilities.
Characteristic relaxation time (tε) and recurrence interval (τ) = 6 yr / 10 yr (text inconsistent)
Rate-state parameters; the Methods state tε=6 yr then says 'characteristic relaxation time tε to 10 years', affecting the probability estimates.
Background seismicity rate constant (γ) = 0.01
Chosen for the rate-and-state triggering probability calculation; no fit to local data.
Shear modulus and Poisson's ratio = 30 GPa, 0.25
Elastic parameters for the Maxwell viscoelastic stress model, taken from cited China-specific studies.

assumptions (5)

standard math Gutenberg–Richter law (log10N = a − bM) holds for the catalog
Used for all b-value estimates (Eq. 2); assumes self-similar magnitude scaling.
domain assumption b-value is a valid stress proxy
Interpretation that low b indicates high stress/locked asperity and high b indicates fluid involvement; a widely used but not universally accepted heuristic.
domain assumption Fault geometry of the Qiaojia–Dongchuan segment: strike 167°, dip 85°
Used to resolve CFS rates onto the fault plane (Methods); taken from Zhao et al. 2015. If the geometry is wrong, the stress rates would change.
domain assumption Deep seismicity belt at 15–20 km marks the Xiaojiang Fault and represents a locked asperity
Inferred from seismicity alignment and comparison with a previous microseismicity study; no new geodetic slip-deficit inversion is performed in this paper.
ad hoc to paper Simplified pore-pressure diffusion with a 5 km decay radius
Authors call it 'highly simplified'; used to compute ΔPp in the CFS model, affecting the pattern of stress accumulation.

invented entities (1)

Dipping structure at 10–16 km depth with dip 50–60°
purpose: Explains compound fault kinematics and vertical stress transfer between shallow reservoir seismicity and the deep locked fault
Inferred solely from microseismicity alignment in cross-sections; the authors explicitly state that confirming this structure requires dedicated local tomography (Fig. S4).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Juxtaposition of Shallow Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity and Deep Tectonic Locking in the Qiaojia-Dongchuan Seismic Gap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4ENPHS4

@misc{pith2026260719606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Juxtaposition of Shallow Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity and Deep Tectonic Locking in the Qiaojia-Dongchuan Seismic Gap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4ENPHS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19606}
}

read the original abstract

Identifying the critical state of mature seismic gaps is challenging, especially when anthropogenic stress perturbations, such as reservoir impoundment, superimpose on tectonic loading. Here, utilizing a high-resolution dense array catalog from the Qiaojia-Dongchuan seismic gap (hosting the second-largest hydropower station in the world), we reveal a distinct vertical decoupling mechanism. The shallow activities exhibit high b-values (1.0), indicative of fluid-driven reservoir-triggered seismicity. Conversely, deep seismicity (20 km) outlines a 'locked asperity' characterized by low b-values (less than 0.8) and high Coulomb stress accumulation rate. We further identify a complex dipping structure, suggesting compound fault kinematics. Additionally, the calculated stress accumulation suggests this seismic gap is in a critical state with elevated rupture potential. Our findings indicate that shallow induced seismicity can mask the silent accumulation of deep tectonic strain. This decoupling model provides a new framework for assessing seismic risks in reservoir-fault systems globally.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

Two kinds of seismic gaps

Mogi, K. Two kinds of seismic gaps. PAGEOPH 117, 1172–1186 (1979)

1979
[2]

Carder, D. S. Seismic investigations in the Boulder Dam area, 1940-1944, and the influence of reservoir loading on local earthquake activity*. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 35, 175–192 (1945)

1940
[4]

& Wen, X

Zhu, H. & Wen, X. Effects of Static Stress Triggering of the Major Earthquake Sequence on Xiaojiang-Zemuhe Fault Zone. dqkxzx 37, 199–206 (2012)

2012
[5]

Wen, X., Ma, S., Xu, X. & He, Y. Historical pattern and behavior of earthquake ruptures along the eastern boundary of the Sichuan-Yunnan faulted-block, southwestern China. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 168, 16–36 (2008)

2008
[6]

Kagan, Y. Y. & Jackson, D. D. Seismic Gap Hypothesis: Ten years after. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 96, 21419–21431 (1991)

1991
[7]

Deadly Myanmar earthquake was probably a rare rupture, scientists say

Witze, A. Deadly Myanmar earthquake was probably a rare rupture, scientists say. Nature 640, 296–297 (2025)

2025
[8]

Li, Y. et al. Sustained supershear rupture during the 2025 Mandalay, Myanmar earthquake. Commun Earth Environ https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02927-5 (2025) doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02927-5

work page doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02927-5 2025
[9]

Xie, L., Fang, N., Liu, X. & Xu, W. Rapid report of June 1, 2022 MW 5.9 Lushan earthquake, China with geodetic and teleseismic data. Earthquake Research Advances 3, 100172 (2023)

2022

Show all 94 references

[10]

& Xie, F

Lei, J., Zhang, G. & Xie, F. The 20 April 2013 Lushan, Sichuan, mainshock, and its aftershock sequence: tectonic implications. Earthq Sci 27, 15–25 (2014)

2013
[11]

& Zhou, S

Lu, W., Zhou, Y., Zhao, Z., Yue, H. & Zhou, S. Aftershock sequence of the 2017 Mw 6.5 Jiuzhaigou, China earthquake monitored by an AsA network and its implication to fault structures and strength. Geophysical Journal International 228, 1763–1779 (2022)

2017
[12]

& Shen, Z.-K

Wang, F., Wang, M., Wang, Y. & Shen, Z.-K. Earthquake potential of the Sichuan-Yunnan region, western China. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 107, 232–243 (2015)

2015
[13]

Xu, X. et al. Lushan MS7.0 earthquake: A blind reserve-fault event. Chinese Science Bulletin 58, (2013)

2013
[14]

& Chamot-Rooke, N

de Michele, M., Raucoules, D., de Sigoyer, J., Pubellier, M. & Chamot-Rooke, N. Three- dimensional surface displacement of the 2008 May 12 Sichuan earthquake (China) derived from Synthetic Aperture Radar: evidence for rupture on a blind thrust. Geophys J Int 183, 1097–1103 (2010)

2008
[15]

Deng, K. et al. Evidence that the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan Earthquake Could Not Have Been Induced by the Zipingpu Reservoir. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100, 2805–2814 (2010)

2008
[16]

Zhao, X. et al. Fine Seismogenic Fault Structures and Complex Rupture Characteristics of the 2022 M6.8 Luding, Sichuan Earthquake Sequence Revealed by Deep Learning and Waveform Modeling. Geophysical Research Letters 50, (2023)

2022
[17]

& Liu, D

Zheng, Y., Guo, R. & Liu, D. Present status and prospective on the seismic hazard studies of major seismic gaps in the Sichuan-Yunnan region. Science China Earth Sciences 67, 3339‒ 3366 (2024)

2024
[18]

& Burchfiel, B

Wang, E. & Burchfiel, B. C. Late Cenozoic to Holocene deformation in southwestern Sichuan and adjacent Yunnan, China, and its role in formation of the southeastern part of the Tibetan Plateau. GSA Bulletin 112, 413–423 (2000)

2000
[19]

Allen, C. R. et al. Field study of a highly active fault zone: The Xianshuihe fault of southwestern China. GSA Bulletin 103, 1178–1199 (1991)

1991
[20]

& Li, C.-L

Zhou, Y., Xu, L.-S., Pan, Z., Hao, M. & Li, C.-L. A new insight into the sources of the 1733DC-M7.8 earthquake on the Xiaojiang fault zone, southeastern Tibet. ESS Open Archive (2022)

2022
[21]

Tan, X. et al. Newly Discovered NE-Striking Dextral Strike-Slip Holocene Active Caimashui Fault in the Central Part of the Sichuan-Yunnan Block and Its Tectonic Significance. Remote Sensing 16, (2024)

2024
[22]

Li, Z. et al. Reproducing the Spatial Characteristics of High‐Frequency Ground Motions for the 1850 M 7.5 Xichang Earthquake. Seismological Research Letters 93, 100–117 (2021)

2021
[23]

& Zhao, Q

Xu, J., Ji, L., Ji, C., Sun, H. & Zhao, Q. Coulomb Stress Evolution And Seismic Hazard Along The Eastern Boundary Of The Sichuan-Yunnan Block. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY 39, 451 (2017)

2017
[24]

& Zhang, L

Shao, Z., Xu, J., Ma, H. & Zhang, L. Coulomb stress evolution over the past 200 years and seismic hazard along the Xianshuihe fault zone of Sichuan, China. Tectonophysics 670, 48– 65 (2016)

2016
[25]

Guo, R., Zheng, Y. & Xu, J. Stress modulation of the seismic gap between the 2008 Ms 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake and the 2013 Ms 7.0 Lushan earthquake and implications for seismic hazard. Geophys J Int 221, 2113–2125 (2020)

2008
[26]

& Yang, S

Shan, B., Xiong, X., Wang, R., Zheng, Y. & Yang, S. Coulomb stress evolution along Xianshuihe–Xiaojiang Fault System since 1713 and its interaction with Wenchuan earthquake, May 12, 2008. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 377–378, 199–210 (2013)

2008
[27]

Stein, S., Wiens, D. A. & Fujita, K. The 1966 Kremasta reservoir earthquake sequence. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 59, 49–60 (1982)

1966
[28]

Gomila, R. et al. Fault Zone Rocks Associated With the Reservoir-Triggered Seismicity of the Koyna-Warna Region (India). Geophysical Research Letters 52, e2025GL115072 (2025)

2025
[29]

K., Rohilla, S., Chaube, H

Sutar, A. K., Rohilla, S., Chaube, H. & Chaudhari, C. Revisiting the reservoir-triggered seismicity of Koyna India using near-source seismological observations and relationship with reservoir water level changes. Tectonophysics 907, 230743 (2025)

2025
[30]

Gupta, H. K. A review of recent studies of triggered earthquakes by artificial water reservoirs with special emphasis on earthquakes in Koyna, India. Earth-Science Reviews 58, 279–310 (2002)

2002
[31]

Yin, G. et al. Seismic and geological evidence of hidden faults in the Yinpan Reservoir area based on a dense seismic array. Science China Earth Sciences 67, 2401–2407 (2024)

2024
[32]

W., Leith, W

Simpson, D. W., Leith, W. S. & Scholz, C. H. Two types of reservoir-induced seismicity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 78, 2025–2040 (1988)

2025
[33]

Lu, R. et al. 3D fault model and seismotectonics indicate the potential seismic risk in the Daliang Mountains, southeastern Tibetan Plateau. Journal of the Geological Society 181, jgs2023-136 (2024)

2024
[34]

& Shen, Z.-K

Wang, M. & Shen, Z.-K. Present-Day Crustal Deformation of Continental China Derived From GPS and Its Tectonic Implications. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 125, e2019JB018774 (2020)

2020
[35]

& Shi, Y

Zhang, Z., Zhang, H. & Shi, Y. Reconciling high-resolution strain rate of continental China from GNSS data with the spherical spline interpolation. Tectonophysics 898, 230614 (2025)

2025
[36]

& Richter, C

Gutenberg, B. & Richter, C. F. Frequency of earthquakes in California*. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 34, 185–188 (1944)

1944
[37]

A Software Package to Analyze Seismicity: ZMAP

Wiemer, S. A Software Package to Analyze Seismicity: ZMAP. Seismological Research Letters 72, 373–382 (2001)

2001
[38]

Zhou, Y. et al. Microseismicity along Xiaojiang Fault Zone (Southeastern Tibetan Plateau) and the characterization of interseismic fault behavior. Tectonophysics 833, 229364 (2022)

2022
[39]

& Shao, Z

Li, Y., Shi, F. & Shao, Z. Coulomb stress change on active faults in Sichuan-Yunnan region and its implications for seismic hazard. 42, 526–546 (2020)

2020
[40]

Cao J., Wang H., liu X., Zhang J. & Shi Y. Three dimensional finite-element simulation on stress and strain accumulation rates of major faults in the Sichuan-Yunnan region: A preliminary result. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese) 67, 1839–1852 (2024)

2024
[41]

On the Nature of Reservoir-induced Seismicity

Talwani, P. On the Nature of Reservoir-induced Seismicity. Pure appl. geophys. 150, 473– 492 (1997)

1997
[42]

F., Lunn, R

do Nascimento, A. F., Lunn, R. J. & Cowie, P. A. Numerical modelling of pore-pressure diffusion in a reservoir-induced seismicity site in northeast Brazil. Geophys J Int 160, 249– 262 (2005)

2005
[43]

Simpson, D. W. & Negmatullaev, S. K. Induced seismicity at Nurek Reservoir, Tadjikistan, USSR. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 71, 1561–1586 (1981)

1981
[44]

On the Nature of Reservoir-induced Seismicity

Talwani, P. On the Nature of Reservoir-induced Seismicity. pure and applied geophysics 150, 473–492 (1997)

1997
[45]

& Acree, S

Talwani, P. & Acree, S. Pore pressure diffusion and the mechanism of reservoir-induced seismicity. pure and applied geophysics 122, 947–965 (1984)

1984
[46]

& Young, R

Lui, S., Huang, Y. & Young, R. P. The Role of Fluid Pressure-Induced Aseismic Slip in Earthquake Cycle Modulation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 126, e2020JB021196 (2021)

2021
[47]

Huang, R. et al. Seismic and Geologic Evidence of Water-Induced Earthquakes in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region of China. Geophysical Research Letters 45, 5929–5936 (2018)

2018
[48]

Ge, S., Liu, M., Lu, N., Godt, J. W. & Luo, G. Did the Zipingpu Reservoir trigger the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake? Geophysical Research Letters 36, (2009)

2008
[49]

The Baihetan Hydropower Station Project in Jinsha River

Zhang, C. The Baihetan Hydropower Station Project in Jinsha River. Engineering 43, 29 (2024)

2024
[50]

Zhang, S. et al. Navigation risk assessment method based on flow conditions: A case study of the river reach between the Three Gorges Dam and the Gezhouba Dam. Ocean Engineering 175, 71–79 (2019)

2019
[51]

& Dong, Y

Xu, L., Niu, R., Fang, S. & Dong, Y. Research on fault information extraction with Landsat TM images in Three Georges area. in 2014 IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 4295–4298 (2014). doi:10.1109/IGARSS.2014.6947439

2014
[52]

Three Gorges Dam: Into the Unknown

Stone, R. Three Gorges Dam: Into the Unknown. Science 321, 628–632 (2008)

2008
[53]

& Chenglong, L

Lixin, Y., Dong, Z. & Chenglong, L. Preliminary Study of Reservoir‐Induced Seismicity in the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Seismological Research Letters 83, 806–814 (2012)

2012
[54]

& Fangmin, S

Jun, S., Yipeng, W. & Fangmin, S. Characteristics of the active Xiaojiang fault zone in Yunnan, China: a slip boundary for the southeastward escaping Sichuan–Yunnan Block of the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 21, 1085–1096 (2003)

2003
[55]

Wang, M., Wei, Z., Long, F., Chen, H. & Li, S. Fault geometry and kinematics at the intersection of the Zemuhe, Daliangshan and Xiaojiang Faults. Front. Earth Sci. 12, (2024)

2024
[56]

& Shiyong, Z

Longtan, W., Jian, P. & Shiyong, Z. Focal Mechanisms of Small Earthquakes and Tectonic Stress Field Study in Zemuhe-Xiaojiang Fault. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis 61, 659 (2025)

2025
[57]

in The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting (ed

The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting. in The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting (ed. Scholz, C. H.) i–i (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019)

2019
[58]

S., Cheon, Y

Kim, N., Park, S.-I., Cho, C. S., Cheon, Y. & Peace, A. L. Neotectonic transpressional intraplate deformation in eastern Eurasia: Insights from active fault systems in the southeastern Korean Peninsula. Geoscience Frontiers 14, 101559 (2023)

2023
[59]

Liu, Y. et al. The high-resolution community velocity model V2.0 of southwest China, constructed by joint body and surface wave tomography of data recorded at temporary dense arrays. Sci. China Earth Sci. 66, 2368–2385 (2023)

2023
[60]

& Upadhyay, R

Tiwari, A., Paul, A., Sain, K., Singh, R. & Upadhyay, R. Depth-dependent seismic anomalies and potential asperity linked to fluid-driven crustal structure in Garhwal region, NW Himalaya. Tectonophysics 862, 229975 (2023)

2023
[61]

Duan M., Zhao C., Zhou L., Zhao C. & Zuo K. Seismogenic structure of the 21 May 2021 MS6.4 Yunnan Yangbi earthquake sequence. Chinese Journal of Geophysics 64, 3111–3125 (2021)

2021
[62]

Shelly, D. R. A High‐Resolution Seismic Catalog for the Initial 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence: Foreshocks, Aftershocks, and Faulting Complexity. Seismological Research Letters 91, 1971–1978 (2020)

2019
[63]

Li, Y. et al. Coseismic Slip Model of the 2022 Mw 6.7 Luding (Tibet) Earthquake: Pre- and Post-Earthquake Interactions With Surrounding Major Faults. Geophysical Research Letters 49, e2022GL102043 (2022)

2022
[64]

& Hardebeck, J

Tormann, T., Wiemer, S. & Hardebeck, J. L. Earthquake recurrence models fail when earthquakes fail to reset the stress field. Geophysical Research Letters 39, (2012)

2012
[65]

L., Mukherjee, B., Tiwari, A

Shaw, R. L., Mukherjee, B., Tiwari, A. & Sharma, M. L. b-value and fractal dimension assisted spatiotemporal seismicity pattern assessment along Himalayan seismic belt. J Seismol https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-025-10325-9 (2025) doi:10.1007/s10950-025-10325- 9

2025 doi
[66]

Jones, L. M. & Molnar, P. Some characteristics of foreshocks and their possible relationship to earthquake prediction and premonitory slip on faults. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 84, 3596–3608 (1979)

1979
[67]

& Kanamori, H

Lay, T. & Kanamori, H. An Asperity Model of Large Earthquake Sequences. Earthquake prediction: an international review 579–592 (1981) doi:10.1029/ME004P0579

1981 doi
[68]

A., Paul, A

Prasath, R. A., Paul, A. & Singh, S. Earthquakes in the Garhwal Himalaya of the Central Seismic Gap: A Study of Historical and Present Seismicity and Their Implications to the Seismotectonics. Pure and Applied Geophysics 176, 4661–4685 (2019)

2019
[69]

Tiwari, R. K. & Paudyal, H. Spatial mapping of b-value and fractal dimension prior to November 8, 2022 Doti Earthquake, Nepal. PLOS ONE 18, e0289673 (2023)

2022
[70]

Towards a Physical Understanding of the Earthquake Frequency Distribution

Wyss, M. Towards a Physical Understanding of the Earthquake Frequency Distribution. Geophysical Journal International 31, 341–359 (1973)

1973
[71]

& Jian, H

Li, Y., Nocquet, J.-M., Shan, X. & Jian, H. Heterogeneous Interseismic Coupling Along the Xianshuihe‐Xiaojiang Fault System, Eastern Tibet. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB021187 doi:10.1029/2020JB021187

doi
[72]

Mousavi, S. M. & Beroza, G. C. Deep-learning seismology. Science 377, eabm4470 (2022)

2022
[73]

M., Ellsworth, W

Mousavi, S. M., Ellsworth, W. L., Zhu, W., Chuang, L. Y. & Beroza, G. C. Earthquake transformer—an attentive deep-learning model for simultaneous earthquake detection and phase picking. Nat Commun 11, 3952 (2020)

2020
[74]

& Beroza, G

Zhu, W. & Beroza, G. C. PhaseNet: a deep-neural-network-based seismic arrival-time picking method. Geophys J Int 216, 261–273 (2019)

2019
[75]

Zhou, Y. et al. TranSeis: A high precision multitask seismic waveform detector. Computers & Geosciences 196, 105867 (2025)

2025
[76]

M., Sheng, Y., Zhu, W

Mousavi, S. M., Sheng, Y., Zhu, W. & Beroza, G. C. STanford EArthquake Dataset (STEAD): A Global Data Set of Seismic Signals for AI. IEEE Access 7, 179464–179476 (2019)

2019
[77]

Jiang, C., Fang, L., Fan, L. & Li, B. Comparison of the earthquake detection abilities of PhaseNet and EQTransformer with the Yangbi and Maduo earthquakes. Earthquake Science 34, 425–435 (2021)

2021
[78]

Lin, X. & Xu, C. Deep-learning-empowered earthquake catalog building: comparison and evaluation of PhaseNet and EqT models. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University 47, 855–865 (2022)

2022
[79]

& Fang, L

Zhao, M., Xiao, Z., Chen, S. & Fang, L. DiTing: A large-scale Chinese seismic benchmark dataset for artificial intelligence in seismology. Earthquake Science 36, 84–94 (2023)

2023
[80]

& Denolle, M

Yuan, C., Ni, Y., Lin, Y. & Denolle, M. Better Together: Ensemble Learning for Earthquake Detection and Phase Picking. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 61, 1– 17 (2023)

2023
[81]

M., Ellsworth, W

Zhu, W., McBrearty, I., Mousavi, S. M., Ellsworth, W. & Beroza, G. Earthquake Phase Association Using a Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 127, (2022)

2022
[82]

Klein, F. W. User’s Guide to HYPOINVERSE-2000, a Fortran Program to Solve for Earthquake Locations and Magnitudes. (2002). doi:10.3133/ofr02171

2002 doi
[83]

A Double-Difference Earthquake Location Algorithm: Method and Application to the Northern Hayward Fault, California

Waldhauser, F. A Double-Difference Earthquake Location Algorithm: Method and Application to the Northern Hayward Fault, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 90, 1353–1368 (2000)

2000
[84]

Liu, Y. et al. The high-resolution community velocity model V2.0 of southwest China, constructed by joint body and surface wave tomography of data recorded at temporary dense arrays. Science China Earth Sciences 66, 2368–2385 (2023)

2023
[85]

Yang, W. et al. Determination of the local magnitudes of small earthquakes using a dense seismic array in the Changning−Zhaotong Shale Gas Field, Southern Sichuan Basin. Earth and Planetary Physics 5, 532–546 (2021)

2021
[86]

& Wyss, M

Wiemer, S. & Wyss, M. Minimum Magnitude of Completeness in Earthquake Catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 90, 859–869 (2000)

2000
[87]

& Wiemer, S

Woessner, J. & Wiemer, S. Assessing the Quality of Earthquake Catalogues: Estimating the Magnitude of Completeness and Its Uncertainty. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95, 684–698 (2005)

2005
[88]

Recent developments of the Middle East catalog

Mousavi, S. M. Comment on “Recent developments of the Middle East catalog” by Zare et al. J Seismol 21, 257–268 (2017)

2017
[89]

Maxwell, J. C. IV. On the dynamical theory of gases. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 157, 49–88 (1997)

1997
[90]

& Shi, Y

Cao, J., Wang, H., Liu, X., Zhang, J. & Shi, Y. Three dimensional finite element simulation on stress and strain accumulation rates of major faults in the Sichuan-Yunnan region:A preliminary result. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese) 67, 1839–1852 (2024)

2024
[91]

& Cao, J

Shi, Y. & Cao, J. Calculation and Discussion of the Equivalent Viscosity Coefficient of the Lithosphere in Mainland China. Earth Science Frontiers (in Chinese) 15, 84–97 (2008)

2008
[92]

Zhao J. et al. Study on dynamic characteristics of fault locking and fault slip deficit in the eastern boundary of the Sichuan-Yunnan rhombic block. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese) 58, 872–885 (2015)

2015
[93]

& Chiaraluce, L

Catalli, F., Cocco, M., Console, R. & Chiaraluce, L. Modeling seismicity rate changes during the 1997 Umbria-Marche sequence (central Italy) through a rate- and state-dependent model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 113, (2008)

1997
[94]

A constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering

Dieterich, J. A constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 99, 2601–2618 (1994)

1994
[95]

Dieterich, J. H. & Kilgore, B. Implications of fault constitutive properties for earthquake prediction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93, 3787–3794 (1996). Acknowledgments We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback and helpfu...

1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Two kinds of seismic gaps

Mogi, K. Two kinds of seismic gaps. PAGEOPH 117, 1172–1186 (1979)

1979

[2] [2]

Carder, D. S. Seismic investigations in the Boulder Dam area, 1940-1944, and the influence of reservoir loading on local earthquake activity*. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 35, 175–192 (1945)

1940

[3] [4]

& Wen, X

Zhu, H. & Wen, X. Effects of Static Stress Triggering of the Major Earthquake Sequence on Xiaojiang-Zemuhe Fault Zone. dqkxzx 37, 199–206 (2012)

2012

[4] [5]

Wen, X., Ma, S., Xu, X. & He, Y. Historical pattern and behavior of earthquake ruptures along the eastern boundary of the Sichuan-Yunnan faulted-block, southwestern China. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 168, 16–36 (2008)

2008

[5] [6]

Kagan, Y. Y. & Jackson, D. D. Seismic Gap Hypothesis: Ten years after. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 96, 21419–21431 (1991)

1991

[6] [7]

Deadly Myanmar earthquake was probably a rare rupture, scientists say

Witze, A. Deadly Myanmar earthquake was probably a rare rupture, scientists say. Nature 640, 296–297 (2025)

2025

[7] [8]

Li, Y. et al. Sustained supershear rupture during the 2025 Mandalay, Myanmar earthquake. Commun Earth Environ https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02927-5 (2025) doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02927-5

work page doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02927-5 2025

[8] [9]

Xie, L., Fang, N., Liu, X. & Xu, W. Rapid report of June 1, 2022 MW 5.9 Lushan earthquake, China with geodetic and teleseismic data. Earthquake Research Advances 3, 100172 (2023)

2022