2021年5月21日青海玛多<i>M</i><sub>W</sub>7.4地震及余震序列应力降时空分布与孕震环境

沈琳; 赵连锋; 谢小碧; 何熹; 姚振兴

doi:10.6038/cjg2022Q0914

2021年5月21日青海玛多M_W7.4地震及余震序列应力降时空分布与孕震环境

- 1.
  中国科学院地质与地球物理研究所地球与行星物理重点实验室, 北京 100029
- 2.
  中国科学院大学, 北京 100049
- 3.
  中国科学院地质与地球物理研究所黑龙江漠河地球物理国家野外科学观测研究站, 黑龙江漠河 165099
- 4.
  美国加州大学圣克鲁兹分校地球物理与行星物理研究所, 美国圣克鲁兹, CA 95064
基金项目:
国家自然科学基金（U2139206，42104055，41974061，41974054）和中国地震科学实验场（2019CSES0103）联合资助

详细信息

作者简介:
沈琳, 女, 1994年生, 博士研究生, 主要研究方向为地震学.E-mail: shenlin@mail.iggcas.ac.cn

通讯作者: 赵连锋, 男, 1972年生, 研究员, 主要研究方向为地震学.E-mail: zhaolf@mail.iggcas.ac.cn

中图分类号: P315

收稿日期: 2022-11-15

修回日期: 2023-06-10

上线日期: 2023-10-10

Spatial-temporal evolution of stress drops in the 21 May 2021 M_W7.4 Madoi earthquake sequence and its seismgenic environment

- 1.
  Key Laboratory of Earth and Planetary Physics, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Scicences, Beijing 100029, China
- 2.
  Colloge of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
- 3.
  Heilongjiang Mohe Observatory of Geophysics, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mohe Heilongjiang 165099, China
- 4.
  Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California at Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA

More Information

Corresponding author: ZHAO LianFeng, E-mail: zhaolf@mail.iggcas.ac.cn

Received Date: 15 November 2022

Revised Date: 10 June 2023

Available Online: 10 October 2023

摘要

摘要:
2021年5月21日发生在青藏高原巴颜喀拉块体内部的玛多M_W7.4地震是继2008年M_W7.9汶川地震之后在中国陆区发生的最大地震.由于玛多地震发生在板块内部滑移速率较缓慢的次级断裂上，该地震成为研究巴颜喀拉块体内部地震危险性的典型震例.通过计算2021年玛多地震序列中震级大于2.5的地震应力降，我们调查了该地震序列应力释放的时空演化规律.首先，利用已有的青藏高原及其周边地区宽频带Lg波衰减模型，对玛多地震序列产生的地震Lg波观测数据进行了传播路径衰减校正，获得119个地震事件的Lg波震源谱；然后，通过将理论震源函数与观测数据拟合，获得对Lg波标量地震矩、拐角频率和高频下降率的估计；最后，根据标量地震矩和拐角频率计算了2021年玛多地震序列的应力降.结果表明，2021年5月21日玛多地震主震应力降为22 MPa，余震序列的应力降分布范围为0.08~7.5 MPa、中位数为0.39 MPa，平均值为0.88 MPa.应力降与震级具有较强的正相关关系，说明该地区的地震活动可能并不遵从地震自相似理论.换言之，大小地震具有不同的破裂动力学性质.玛多地震序列应力降变化反映了断层面上的应力释放过程具有强烈的非均质性.主震发生之后余震应力降显著降低，但其间仍夹杂着少数具有较高应力降的事件.这些高应力降事件所在区域与主震后破裂面上的闭锁和应力集中区域相对应.
- 2021年玛多地震序列 /
- Lg波 /
- 震源函数 /
- 应力降 /
- 衰减
Abstract:
The M_W7.4 Madoi earthquake, which occurred inside the Bayan Har block on the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau on May 21, 2021, is the largest earthquake in the Chinese continent since the 2008 M_W7.9 Wenchuan earthquake. The 2021 Madoi earthquake sequence, located on a secondary fault inside the block with a slow slip rate, provides us an opportunity to understand the seismic risk for the Bayan Har block. By estimating the stress drops of the 2021 Madoi earthquake sequence for events with magnitudes larger than 2.5, we investigated the temporal and spatial evolution of the stress release of the earthquake sequence. We first used an established high-resolution broadband Lg-wave attenuation model for the Tibetan Plateau and its surrounding areas to correct the attenuation effect during wave propagation and obtained the Lg-wave source excitation spectra for 119 earthquakes in the 2021 Madoi earthquake sequence. Then, we modeled the seismic moment, corner frequency, and high-frequency fall-off rate by fitting the theoretical and observed source spectra, and finally estimated the stress drops. Our results show that the stress drop of the mainshock is about 22 MPa, and the range, median and average values of the stress drop of the aftershock sequence are 0.08~7.5 MPa, 0.39 MPa, and 0.88 MPa, respectively. A strong positive dependence between the stress drops and the magnitudes was observed, indicating the earthquakes in this area may not follow the earthquake self-similarity theory. In other words, large and small earthquakes have different rupture dynamics. The spatial and temporal variations of stress drops reflect strong heterogeneity and a complex stress release process on the fault plane. Though the stress drops of these aftershocks decrease rapidly after the mainshock, there are several aftershocks with relatively high stress drops. The regions with high stress drop indicate the area of stress concentration on the fault plane after the mainshock.
- 2021 Madoi earthquake sequence /
- Lg-wave /
- Source excitation spectrum /
- Stress drop /
- Attenuation

HTML全文

图 1

玛多地震序列及区域地质构造

Figure 1.

Maps showing the distribution of the Madoi earthquake sequence and regional geology

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2

青藏高原东部区域地壳Lg波Q值分布、2021年5月22日9时39分M4.6地震事件位置(红色五角星)和地震台站位置(白色三角形)(a)和区域地震图(b)

Figure 2.

Map showing the crustal Lg-wave attenuation in the eastern part of the Tibetan Plateau and the locations of the earthquake with magnitude of 4.6 that occurred at 9:39 on May 22, 2021 (red star) and of stations (white triangles) (a), and regional seismograms (b)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3

Lg波数据预处理过程

Figure 3.

Data processing procedure for calculating Lg-wave spectra

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4

(a) 1.0 Hz Lg波振幅谱反演过程中均方根残差随迭代次数的变化，其中第12次迭代时残差最小为0.68；(b) 反演前、衰减校正后、衰减和台基响应校正后各个频率Lg波振幅均方根残差，作为代表，(c)和(d)分别为0.5和1.0 Hz Lg波振幅反演前、衰减校正后、衰减和台基响应校正后拟合残差的统计直方图，其中标出了残差的平均值和标准差

Figure 4.

(a) The root mean square (RMS) of the Lg spectra amplitude residual versus the iteration during the inversion at 1.0 Hz, in which the smallest residual of 0.68 appears at the 12^th iteration. (b) The RMS residuals for 58 frequencies before inversion, after corrected by local attenuation, and after corrected by both attenuation and site response. Histograms of the Lg spectra amplitude misfit before the inversion (dark blue), corrected by the attenuation (pink), and corrected by both the local attenuation and site response (yellow) at 0.5 Hz (c) and 1.0 Hz (d), respectively, where the mean and standard deviation values are labeled

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5

利用Lg波震源激发函数拟合震源参数计算实例

Figure 5.

Examples of observed Lg-wave source excitation spectra and source parameters obtained by fitting the data

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6

(a) 标量地震矩M₀与拐角频率f_c的关系, 其中给出应力降为0.1，1.0，10 MPa的等值线(虚线)；(b)地方震级M_L与矩震级M_W之间的关系，两条曲线分别给出具有不同截距和斜率的线性关系(虚线和红线)

Figure 6.

(a) Seismic moment versus corner frequency for the 2021 Madoi earthquake sequence, in which the dashed lines mark the constant stress drop of 0.1, 1.0, and 10.0 MPa; (b) The local magnitude M_L given by CENC versus moment magnitude M_W. in which the red and dashed black lines give two linear regressions with different slopes and intersections

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7

(a) 2021年玛多地震序列应力降的空间分布图；(b)沿A-B的同震破裂滑动量(Wang et al., 2022)深度剖面，其中2021玛多地震破裂带分段位置来自潘家伟等(2021).圆圈大小和内部填色分别表示震级和应力降大小，紫色线段为剖面位置.图中断层缩写与图 1一致

Figure 7.

(a) Map view and (b) depth profile showing event locations for the 2021 Madoi earthquake sequence. The magnitudes and stress drops are coded by sizes and colors of circles. The purple line in (a) represent the location of the vertical profile. The color image in (b) denotes the distribution of coseismic slip (Wang et al., 2022), and the segmentation of surface ruptures was collected from Pan et al. (2021). The fault abbreviations are the same as those used in Fig. 1

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8

(a) 余震应力降和震级距主震发震时刻的关系，红色虚线标出了应力降中位数；(b) 应力降随震源深度的变化；(c) 应力降和震级的关系，红色实线为线性回归结果

Figure 8.

(a) Variations of stress drops and local magnitudes versus the time since the mainshock, where the red dashed line indicates the median value of the stress drop (b), the stress drop versus the local magnitude, and (c) the relationship between the stress drops with the magnitude, respectively

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表附表 1

地震参数列表

Table 附表 1.

Appendix Table S1 Earthquake parameters used in this study

事件参数						接收到的台站数量	震源参数
日期 (年-月-日)	时间 (时: 分: 秒国际标准时间)	纬度 (°N)	经度 (°E)	震源深度 (km)	震级	接收到的台站数量	地震矩M₀ (N·m)	拐角频率 f_c(Hz)	高频下降率 n	应力降 Δσ(kPa)
2021-05-21	18:04:12	34.6502	98.3848	7.607	7.3	203	3.34±2.03×10¹⁹	0.08±0.02	2.46±0.13	21994.7±17896.2
2021-05-21	18:16:32	34.4477	99.0684	26.272	3.8	64	2.76±0.18×10¹⁴	2.26±0.11	3.69±0.15	3499.4±574.3
2021-05-21	18:30:29	34.419	98.9888	30.901	3.6	127	1.90±0.59×10¹⁵	0.79±0.08	2.98±0.10	1045.4±467.0
2021-05-21	18:30:55	34.6398	98.7004	7.008	2.9	128	1.88±0.52×10¹⁵	0.79±0.09	2.96±0.10	1017.3±445.7
2021-05-21	18:35:08	34.9294	97.8465	18.65	3.5	170	5.24±1.17×10¹⁵	0.58±0.06	2.74±0.07	1117.8±437.5
2021-05-21	18:50:57	34.5127	98.8946	2.111	3.4	186	7.61±0.72×10¹⁴	1.10±0.07	3.04±0.10	1111.3±241.7
2021-05-21	18:55:25	34.5605	98.6915	4.461	3.4	184	4.67±1.55×10¹⁴	1.25±0.16	3.38±0.17	1011.7±511.0
2021-05-21	19:03:06	34.4507	99.051	8.867	4.4	212	4.46±1.25×10¹⁵	1.15±0.10	3.94±0.15	7517.1±2823.3
2021-05-21	19:09:16	34.7395	97.9676	7.548	4.0	187	2.91±0.12×10¹⁵	1.05±0.03	3.44±0.06	3672.0±372.2
2021-05-21	19:16:38	34.4407	99.0923	8.93	3.4	154	1.04±0.06×10¹⁵	0.83±0.03	2.87±0.05	662.0±89.7
2021-05-21	19:22:38	34.6039	98.5234	6.935	3.0	190	4.98±0.44×10¹⁴	1.03±0.06	3.01±0.08	605.8±120.5
2021-05-21	19:28:28	34.4506	99.0877	9.79	3.0	192	2.53±0.41×10¹⁴	1.09±0.12	2.90±0.13	357.9±130.9
2021-05-21	19:29:39	34.587	98.5837	8.579	2.8	107	2.62±1.27×10¹⁴	1.38±0.43	2.75±0.51	753.4±794.5
2021-05-21	19:33:40	34.7461	97.8831	10.893	3.2	176	3.14±0.90×10¹⁴	1.05±0.18	2.53±0.16	399.5±236.0
2021-05-21	19:36:51	34.4541	99.0085	13.885	2.6	185	3.20±0.46×10¹⁴	0.92±0.11	2.55±0.10	272.5±102.7
2021-05-21	19:45:15	34.7374	97.9704	11.68	2.7	176	2.10±0.18×10¹⁴	1.16±0.11	3.02±0.15	361.9±107.1
2021-05-21	19:47:01	34.7331	98.0285	6.274	3.1	197	7.40±0.91×10¹⁴	1.10±0.09	3.48±0.16	1090.4±301.0
2021-05-21	19:49:14	34.7173	97.9715	6.399	4.1	196	4.02±0.41×10¹⁵	0.78±0.05	3.22±0.12	2080.7±469.5
2021-05-21	19:57:17	34.5025	98.9055	1.487	2.5	159	1.46±0.27×10¹⁴	1.10±0.14	2.58±0.14	211.3±89.2
2021-05-21	19:59:51	34.4684	99.1892	8.968	2.5	180	2.75±1.38×10¹⁴	0.75±0.23	1.85±0.17	125.9±132.9
2021-05-21	20:00:47	34.4698	99.196	24.945	2.5	113	2.14±0.42×10¹⁴	1.04±0.17	2.75±0.16	267.6±141.9
2021-05-21	20:04:30	34.5726	98.6367	8.925	3.6	205	1.04±0.05×10¹⁵	1.15±0.04	3.28±0.06	1721.6±216.3
2021-05-21	20:13:13	34.4621	99.08	8.602	3.1	151	4.41±0.30×10¹⁴	1.23±0.07	3.11±0.11	896.7±161.2
2021-05-21	20:23:58	34.4564	99.0732	8.479	3.4	206	7.37±0.53×10¹⁴	0.93±0.04	2.94±0.09	648.0±102.9
2021-05-21	20:24:18	34.7326	97.8183	14.48	3.1	172	8.84±1.34×10¹⁴	0.72±0.07	2.59±0.10	362.5±118.6
2021-05-21	20:24:46	34.697	98.16	7.126	3.0	172	8.89±1.06×10¹⁴	0.72±0.06	2.59±0.10	363.8±107.4
2021-05-21	20:27:45	34.7458	97.8106	12.859	3.2	147	3.98±0.25×10¹⁴	1.12±0.06	3.15±0.09	616.3±109.7
2021-05-21	20:30:08	34.642	98.4654	10.42	2.6	157	2.59±0.27×10¹⁴	1.14±0.10	2.91±0.12	423.2±124.5
2021-05-21	20:36:13	34.6316	98.4761	6.601	3.1	201	4.27±0.85×10¹⁴	1.06±0.10	3.32±0.17	563.6±197.4
2021-05-21	20:39:03	34.6674	98.345	9.539	2.8	118	3.07±0.60×10¹⁴	0.96±0.13	2.62±0.13	296.3±130.7
2021-05-21	20:44:18	34.7723	97.6565	9.301	2.5	184	2.00±0.28×10¹⁴	1.09±0.09	2.94±0.11	286.3±79.2
2021-05-21	20:45:48	34.466	98.9635	11.237	2.7	200	1.92±0.32×10¹⁴	1.18±0.13	2.75±0.15	344.6±127.0
2021-05-21	20:52:33	34.3968	99.1273	8.435	2.9	188	1.96±0.22×10¹⁴	1.23±0.11	2.92±0.11	402.8±117.3
2021-05-21	20:55:33	34.653	98.3503	5.239	2.9	180	5.38±2.98×10¹⁴	0.58±0.16	2.21±0.12	112.8±112.2
2021-05-21	21:09:11	34.4471	99.2819	12.352	3.7	198	8.53±0.43×10¹⁴	1.27±0.06	3.09±0.10	1907.3±277.4
2021-05-21	21:14:00	34.7313	97.9994	6.871	3.1	171	7.17±2.93×10¹⁴	0.74±0.14	2.50±0.15	319.3±227.2
2021-05-21	21:28:18	34.4477	99.1082	9.689	2.5	188	1.71±0.23×10¹⁴	1.03±0.10	2.70±0.11	203.7±65.6
2021-05-21	21:32:27	34.6422	98.426	9.375	2.5	173	1.07±0.26×10¹⁴	1.27±0.22	2.57±0.19	240.1±139.3
2021-05-21	21:37:37	34.5845	98.5604	9.025	3.0	205	4.01±0.52×10¹⁴	1.03±0.08	3.01±0.12	481.9±134.4
2021-05-21	21:50:51	34.5643	98.5486	8.17	3.3	204	7.60±0.75×10¹⁴	0.79±0.07	2.78±0.11	410.2±112.9
2021-05-21	21:59:35	34.6154	98.4646	6.403	4.6	199	6.16±0.49×10¹⁵	0.52±0.03	2.93±0.08	936.4±204.0
2021-05-21	22:04:22	34.4997	99.376	7.133	2.8	96	2.94±0.88×10¹⁴	0.80±0.15	2.43±0.12	164.7±104.2
2021-05-21	23:06:49	34.4642	99.573	25.807	2.6	191	1.12±0.22×10¹⁴	1.04±0.18	2.18±0.12	136.7±76.2
2021-05-21	23:32:04	34.7187	98.0657	11.806	3.1	193	4.89±0.54×10¹⁴	0.89±0.08	2.61±0.11	378.5±114.1
2021-05-22	0:00:26	34.7767	97.6557	7.805	3.1	210	4.48±0.00×10¹⁴	0.94±0.00	2.61±0.00	414.2±0.0
2021-05-22	0:26:38	34.4739	99.2058	11.68	2.8	213	1.95±0.47×10¹⁴	1.16±0.15	2.48±0.14	332.7±151.1
2021-05-22	1:04:56	34.6307	98.4701	10.491	2.6	174	1.52±0.30×10¹⁴	1.00±0.27	2.15±0.25	169.5±140.1
2021-05-22	1:05:13	34.7051	98.0444	0.069	2.6	169	1.53±0.40×10¹⁴	1.02±0.25	2.17±0.18	179.6±141.9
2021-05-22	1:06:50	34.7564	97.8131	5.066	2.5	127	4.72±0.88×10¹⁴	0.54±0.10	2.07±0.12	83.9±48.4
2021-05-22	1:48:07	34.7111	98.0755	13.727	2.5	177	3.83±0.39×10¹⁴	1.02±0.10	2.62±0.13	447.1±139.4
2021-05-22	2:11:44	34.4547	99.1894	10.331	3.0	212	2.37±0.23×10¹⁴	0.98±0.09	2.46±0.10	245.2±70.7
2021-05-22	2:29:34	34.8125	97.5066	7.267	5.2	177	1.91±0.19×10¹⁶	0.63±0.04	3.47±0.10	5159.0±1148.2
2021-05-22	2:38:44	34.5011	98.9306	8.428	4.9	204	1.45±0.15×10¹⁶	0.57±0.07	3.06±0.17	3002.6±1072.7
2021-05-22	2:42:17	34.7292	97.9686	10.01	3.4	46	1.74±0.22×10¹⁵	0.62±0.06	2.65±0.11	466.0±148.3
2021-05-22	2:58:14	34.6389	98.4085	4.922	2.7	184	2.87±0.48×10¹⁴	0.72±0.12	2.04±0.13	116.3±63.5
2021-05-22	3:02:15	34.4556	99.2294	8.533	2.9	196	2.15±0.19×10¹⁴	1.32±0.11	2.87±0.12	540.8±140.8
2021-05-22	3:16:11	34.7006	98.0051	10.225	3.6	185	7.78±0.58×10¹⁴	0.65±0.06	2.34±0.14	231.0±61.6
2021-05-22	3:21:17	34.6961	98.0529	12.029	4.8	191	9.13±0.71×10¹⁵	0.87±0.05	3.52±0.10	6631.8±1159.8
2021-05-22	3:36:30	34.4753	98.8892	11.766	2.6	80	1.23±0.58×10¹⁴	1.32±0.30	2.45±0.22	314.0±259.1
2021-05-22	3:55:39	34.6347	98.4324	6.43	2.5	188	1.27±0.14×10¹⁴	1.29±0.14	2.30±0.13	302.4±106.8
2021-05-22	4:47:03	34.7251	98.0368	6.276	2.8	194	2.25±0.44×10¹⁴	1.04±0.19	2.07±0.15	278.9±163.1
2021-05-22	4:59:02	34.7959	97.6031	7.387	3.6	188	4.21±0.60×10¹⁴	0.77±0.08	2.48±0.11	209.1±69.8
2021-05-22	5:09:23	34.6237	98.4799	9.346	2.7	199	1.90±0.35×10¹⁴	0.91±0.16	2.10±0.16	158.6±89.3
2021-05-22	5:21:25	34.614	98.4823	5.453	3.0	201	3.09±0.17×10¹⁴	0.78±0.07	2.38±0.12	160.0±43.7
2021-05-22	7:06:21	34.4949	98.9033	5.492	4.9	210	8.42±0.43×10¹⁵	0.86±0.03	3.68±0.06	5899.6±647.7
2021-05-22	7:29:35	34.4362	99.0224	5.331	3.1	211	4.80±0.36×10¹⁴	1.03±0.06	2.78±0.07	570.7±111.2
2021-05-22	7:39:04	34.6409	98.4169	7.925	3.0	190	2.84±0.37×10¹⁴	1.01±0.14	2.28±0.14	323.4±137.6
2021-05-22	7:42:47	34.4577	99.0099	8.16	2.5	148	1.18±0.18×10¹⁴	1.13±0.22	2.43±0.16	189.3±113.9
2021-05-22	7:54:09	34.6447	98.4016	8.535	3.2	199	5.12±0.17×10¹⁴	1.18±0.05	3.08±0.09	924.3±113.2
2021-05-22	7:54:59	34.7027	98.1573	10.876	2.6	195	5.13±0.18×10¹⁴	1.18±0.05	3.08±0.10	919.0±110.6
2021-05-22	8:50:07	34.6741	98.2753	9.976	3.1	185	4.42±1.16×10¹⁴	1.04±0.16	2.86±0.23	551.5±294.4
2021-05-22	9:20:25	34.724	97.9932	7.285	3.3	196	6.55±0.45×10¹⁴	1.11±0.08	2.55±0.10	988.5±215.4
2021-05-22	9:39:34	34.7906	97.6025	6.716	4.6	187	7.79±0.90×10¹⁵	0.38±0.04	2.55±0.12	471.9±168.1
2021-05-22	9:42:48	34.651	98.4328	9.233	3.1	111	3.76±5.22×10¹⁴	1.13±0.24	2.71±0.17	596.0±911.8
2021-05-22	11:13:26	34.7156	98.0991	10.21	2.9	197	1.84±0.24×10¹⁴	1.20±0.14	2.58±0.15	354.3±134.4
2021-05-22	12:08:01	34.4347	99.0351	8.591	2.8	210	2.38±0.14×10¹⁴	0.79±0.08	2.00±0.11	128.0±37.8
2021-05-22	12:32:41	34.6921	98.1391	9.111	3.5	196	5.28±0.42×10¹⁴	1.12±0.07	2.89±0.09	811.5±168.4
2021-05-22	13:00:05	34.449	99.0837	8.316	3.0	208	1.65±0.20×10¹⁴	1.20±0.13	2.53±0.13	316.4±109.5
2021-05-22	13:09:12	34.4532	99.0736	8.779	3.0	200	2.02±0.16×10¹⁴	1.26±0.09	2.86±0.10	444.8±103.0
2021-05-22	14:01:13	34.6344	98.4691	7.83	3.0	199	4.20±0.76×10¹⁴	0.84±0.11	2.64±0.14	273.0±118.3
2021-05-22	15:24:54	34.8206	97.4999	6.28	3.0	183	6.24±1.19×10¹⁴	0.73±0.09	2.73±0.12	269.1±107.7
2021-05-22	15:46:13	34.4478	99.1083	10.851	3.5	213	8.00±0.35×10¹⁴	0.95±0.05	2.84±0.08	747.5±118.4
2021-05-22	18:11:24	34.7296	97.9957	14.359	2.8	190	7.17±3.77×10¹³	1.19±0.24	2.55±0.26	131.7±105.0
2021-05-22	18:19:38	34.6127	98.5197	5.017	3.1	202	3.96±0.81×10¹⁴	1.04±0.13	3.01±0.22	487.8±209.5
2021-05-23	3:06:34	34.4644	99.0005	4.84	2.5	204	9.37±1.93×10¹³	1.29±0.24	2.38±0.20	223.2±130.6
2021-05-23	3:46:53	34.4493	99.171	9.293	3.8	215	1.43±0.12×10¹⁵	0.62±0.04	2.58±0.08	377.3±83.9
2021-05-23	4:15:54	34.4622	99.0865	7.215	2.9	194	1.97±0.46×10¹⁴	1.09±0.13	2.46±0.12	277.6±120.4
2021-05-23	7:24:32	34.4356	99.1006	13.395	3.8	214	1.31±0.07×10¹⁵	1.20±0.05	3.26±0.09	2518.7±366.8
2021-05-23	7:55:28	34.7361	97.9743	9.303	2.6	185	8.65±1.46×10¹³	1.26±0.22	2.30±0.23	188.6±103.8
2021-05-23	8:35:45	34.5169	98.6009	6.909	2.9	197	3.47±0.66×10¹⁴	0.91±0.12	2.41±0.11	290.4±123.5
2021-05-23	10:52:35	34.8228	97.5271	9.221	2.6	174	1.10±0.16×10¹⁴	1.23±0.19	2.33±0.19	228.3±108.4
2021-05-23	12:56:38	34.4263	99.0416	7.336	2.6	207	9.57±2.06×10¹³	1.18±0.25	2.35±0.22	174.7±116.2
2021-05-23	14:51:42	34.7099	98.04	11.067	2.6	191	1.29±0.34×10¹⁴	1.01±0.19	2.28±0.16	146.1±92.5
2021-05-23	15:14:35	34.4829	98.9408	6.782	2.5	205	1.01±0.15×10¹⁴	1.14±0.18	2.36±0.14	166.4±80.8
2021-05-23	18:09:46	34.4039	99.2227	8.875	2.5	207	7.54±1.44×10¹³	1.19±0.18	2.49±0.16	138.3±69.7
2021-05-23	20:55:07	34.6974	98.1227	7.968	2.5	193	9.95±2.66×10¹³	1.16±0.24	2.45±0.22	170.2±115.7
2021-05-23	23:23:41	34.6894	98.2475	9.547	3.3	200	4.20±0.82×10¹⁴	1.23±0.10	3.23±0.14	871.0±266.5
2021-05-24	5:41:27	34.4536	99.0339	4.899	2.7	210	1.09±0.19×10¹⁴	1.26±0.17	2.57±0.16	239.2±105.4
2021-05-24	7:06:13	34.6754	98.2764	10.104	3.3	183	1.01±0.05×10¹⁵	0.94±0.04	3.17±0.08	928.0±129.4
2021-05-24	8:31:27	34.785	97.5679	6.129	4.2	187	2.22±0.22×10¹⁵	0.95±0.06	3.48±0.11	2102.9±438.7
2021-05-24	14:15:19	34.4503	98.9861	5.232	4.3	213	4.08±0.44×10¹⁵	0.94±0.06	3.49±0.09	3679.5±769.5
2021-05-24	18:15:56	34.7545	97.672	12.75	3.5	189	2.38±0.15×10¹⁴	1.20±0.07	2.86±0.11	450.0±85.7
2021-05-24	18:27:11	34.4126	99.0784	8.627	3.0	210	2.07±0.18×10¹⁴	1.22±0.09	2.78±0.13	413.6±95.5
2021-05-24	23:00:19	34.6982	98.0056	10.096	4.1	195	2.10±0.20×10¹⁵	0.97±0.07	3.14±0.13	2139.7±530.5
2021-05-24	23:16:58	34.6948	98.1654	7.454	2.6	193	1.66±0.28×10¹⁴	0.94±0.16	2.09±0.13	150.6±81.4
2021-05-25	0:33:24	34.7096	98.009	6.955	2.6	175	7.50×10¹³± 5.37 ×10¹⁵	1.27±0.54	2.09±0.29	170.8±1242.2
2021-05-25	4:46:23	34.7658	97.8436	9.622	2.8	174	1.44±0.36×10¹⁴	1.25±0.23	2.44±0.17	308.9±184.2
2021-05-25	6:46:51	34.4625	99.2309	7.973	3.0	214	2.63±0.43×10¹⁴	1.29±0.11	2.69±0.13	616.1±185.3
2021-05-25	9:30:38	34.4574	99.1763	12.908	3.0	213	2.85±4.06×10¹⁴	1.10±0.13	2.69±0.12	419.9±618.6
2021-05-25	19:30:58	34.7101	98.1122	11.964	2.5	194	1.34±0.24×10¹⁴	1.05±0.18	2.67±0.19	171.4±93.0
2021-05-26	5:54:10	34.6451	98.4647	11.03	3.6	198	7.66±0.43×10¹⁴	1.44±0.07	3.46±0.14	2505.7±409.5
2021-05-26	5:54:10	34.6452	98.4631	10.949	3.5	198	7.52±0.34×10¹⁴	1.44±0.06	3.46±0.13	2500.3±341.4
2021-05-26	17:45:25	34.4709	98.9428	12.174	2.9	207	1.45±6.04×10¹⁴	1.69±0.25	3.35±0.26	771.9±3240.7
2021-05-26	22:14:07	34.7237	98.0679	10.51	2.6	176	7.03±1.88×10¹³	1.42±0.27	2.50±0.23	219.8±138.5
2021-05-27	7:48:10	34.7222	98.0819	13.158	2.7	193	2.22±0.22×10¹⁴	0.99±0.10	2.43±0.09	240.7±78.2
2021-05-27	11:48:03	34.6384	98.4752	7.603	2.8	198	2.74±0.54×10¹⁴	1.12±0.20	2.09±0.17	420.2±243.6
2021-05-27	13:06:07	34.4453	99.1597	8.843	4.9	215	1.25±0.11×10¹⁶	0.73±0.05	3.19±0.09	5417.9±1134.5
2021-05-27	22:03:19	34.7285	98.0607	10.866	2.6	186	1.26±0.24×10¹⁴	0.97±0.17	2.19±0.16	127.9±71.9
2021-05-28	1:16:39	34.6522	98.3928	7.343	2.8	201	2.80±0.76×10¹⁴	0.89±0.19	2.26±0.18	216.6±148.2

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(139)

	Abercrombie R E. 1995. Earthquake source scaling relationships from -1 to 5 M_L using seismograms recorded at 2.5-km depth. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 100(B12): 24015-24036. doi: 10.1029/95JB02397
	Abercrombie R E. 2014. Stress drops of repeating earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(24): 8784-8791, doi: 10.1002/2014GL062079.
	Abercrombie R E. 2015. Investigating uncertainties in empirical Green's function analysis of earthquake source parameters. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 120(6): 4263-4277, doi: 10.1002/2015JB011984.
	Abercrombie R E, Bannister S, Ristau J, et al. 2017. Variability of earthquake stress drop in a subduction setting, the Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. Geophysical Journal International, 208(1): 306-320, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggw393.
	Abercrombie R E. 2021. Resolution and uncertainties in estimates of earthquake stress drop and energy release. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 379(2196): 20200131, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0131.
	Abercrombie R E, Trugman D T, Shearer P M, et al. 2021. Does earthquake rtress drop increase with depth in the crust?. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126(10): e2021JB022314, doi: 10.1029/2021JB022314.
	Aki K. 1967. Scaling law of seismic spectrum. Journal of Geophysical Research, 72(4): 1217-1231. doi: 10.1029/JZ072i004p01217
	Aki K. 1984. Asperities, barriers, characteristic earthquakes and strong motion prediction. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 89(B7): 5867-5872. doi: 10.1029/JB089iB07p05867
	Allmann B P, Shearer P M. 2007. Spatial and temporal stress drop variations in small earthquakes near Parkfield, California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 112(B4): B04305, doi: 10.1029/2006JB004395.
	Allmann B P, Shearer P M. 2009. Global variations of stress drop for moderate to large earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 114(B1): B01310, doi: 10.1029/2008JB005821.
	Bao X W, Song X D, Li J T. 2015. High-resolution lithospheric structure beneath mainland China from ambient noise and earthquake surface-wave tomography. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 417: 132-141, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2015.02.024.
	Bethmann F, Deichmann N, Mai P M. 2011. Scaling relations of local magnitude versus moment magnitude for sequences of similar earthquakes in Switzerland. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101(2): 515-534, doi: 10.1785/0120100179.
	Boatwright J. 1980. A spectral theory for circular seismic sources; simple estimates of source dimension, dynamic stress drop, and radiated seismic energy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 70(1): 1-27.
	Boyd O S, McNamara D E, Hartzell S, et al. 2017. Influence of lithostatic stress on earthquake stress drops in North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(2): 856-868, doi: 10.1785/0120160219.
	Brune J N. 1970. Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75(26): 4997-5009. doi: 10.1029/JB075i026p04997
	Campillo M, Plantet J L, Bouchon M. 1985. Frequency-dependent attenuation in the crust beneath Central France from Lg waves: Data analysis and numerical modeling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 75(5): 1395-1411. doi: 10.1785/BSSA0750051395
	Cao X L, Chang L J, Lu L Y, et al. 2022. Variations of shear wave splitting in the source region of the MadoiM_S7.4 earthquake, Qinghai. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 65(5): 1644-1659, doi: 10.6038/cjg2022P0944.
	Chen K J, Avouac J P, Geng J H, et al. 2022. The 2021 M_W7.4 Madoiearthquake: an archetype bilateral slip-pulse rupture arrested at a splay fault. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(2): e2021GL095243, doi: 10.1029/2021GL095243.
	Cocco M, Tinti E, Cirella A. 2016. On the scale dependence of earthquake stress drop. Journal of Seismology, 20(4): 1151-1170, doi: 10.1007/s10950-016-9594-4.
	Dahlen F A. 1974. On the ratio of P-wave to S-wave corner frequencies for shallow earthquake sources. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 64(4): 1159-1180. doi: 10.1785/BSSA0640041159
	Efron B. 1983. Estimating the error rate of a prediction uule: improvement on cross-validation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78(382): 316-331. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1983.10477973
	Eshelby J D. 1957. The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 241(1226): 376-396. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1957.0133
	Fan G W, Lay T. 2002. Characteristics of Lg attenuation in the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B10): 2256, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000804.
	Feng Y S, Xiong X, Shan B, et al. 2022. Coulomb stress changes due to the 2021 M_S7.4 Maduo Earthquake and expected seismicity rate changes in the surroundings. Science China Earth Sciences, 65(4): 675-686, doi: 10.1007/s11430-021-9882-8.
	Folesky J, Kummerow J, Shapiro S A. 2021. Stress drop variations in the region of the 2014 M_W8.1 Iquique earthquake, northern Chile. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126(4): e2020JB020112, doi: 10.1029/2020JB020112.
	Furumura T, Hong T K, Kennett B L N. 2014. Lg wave propagation in the area around Japan: observations and simulations. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 1(1): 10, doi: 10.1186/2197-4284-1-10.
	Gao Z Y, Li Y C, Shan X J, et al. 2021. Earthquake magnitude estimation from high-rate GNSS data: a case study of the 2021 M_W7.3 Maduo earthquake. Remote Sensing, 13(21): 4478, doi: 10.3390/rs13214478.
	Goebel T H W, Hauksson E, Shearer P M, et al. 2015. Stress-drop heterogeneity within tectonically complex regions: a case study of San Gorgonio Pass, southern California. Geophysical Journal International, 202(1): 514-528, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggv160.
	Goertz-Allmann B P, Edwards B, Bethmann F, et al. 2011. A new empirical magnitude scaling relation for switzerland. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101(6): 3088-3095, doi: 10.1785/0120100291.
	Guo R M, Yang H F, Li Y, et al. 2021. Complex slip distribution of the 2021 M_W7.4 Maduo, China, earthquake: an event occurring on the slowly slipping fault. Seismological Research Letters, 93(2A): 653-665, doi: 10.1785/0220210226.
	Haar L C, Mueller C S, Fletcher J B, et al. 1986. Comments on "Some recent Lg phase displacement spectral densities and their implications with respect to prediction of ground motions in Eastern North America" by R. Street. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 76(1): 291-295. doi: 10.1785/BSSA0760010291
	Hanks T C, Kanamori H. 1979. A moment magnitude scale. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 84(B5): 2348-2350. doi: 10.1029/JB084iB05p02348
	Hauksson E. 2015. Average stress drops of southern California earthquakes in the context of crustal geophysics: implications for fault zone healing. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172(5): 1359-1370, doi: 10.1007/s00024-014-0934-4.
	He L J, Feng G C, Wu X X, et al. 2021a. Coseismic and early postseismic slip models of the 2021 M_W7.4 Maduo earthquake (western China) estimated by space-based geodetic data. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(24): e2021GL095860, doi: 10.1029/2021GL095860.
	He X, Zhao L F, Xie X B, et al. 2018. High-precision relocation and event discrimination for the 3 September 2017 underground nuclear explosion and subsequent seismic events at the North Korean test site. Seismological Research Letters, 89(6): 2042-2048, doi: 10.1785/0220180164.
	He X, Zhao L F, Xie X B, et al. 2020. Stress drop assessment of the August 8, 2017, Jiuzhaigou earthquake sequence and its tectonic implications. Earthquake Science, 33(4): 161-176, doi: 10.29382/eqs-2020-0161-01.
	He X, Zhao L F, Xie X B, et al. 2021b. Weak crust in southeast Tibetan Plateau revealed by Lg-wave attenuation tomography: implications for crustal material escape. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126(3): e2020JB020748, doi: 10.1029/2020JB020748.
	He X, Zhao L F, Xie X B, et al. 2023. Eastward expansion of the Tibetan plateau: Insights from stress drops of the 2021 M_S6.4 Yangbi, Yunnan and M_S7.4 Maduo, Qinghai earthquake sequences in China. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11: 1081605, doi: 10.3389/feart.2023.1081605.
	Hong S Y, Liu M, Liu T, et al. 2022. Fault source model and stress changes of the 2021 M_W7.4 Maduo earthquake, China, constrained by InSAR and GPS measurements. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 112(3): 1284-1296, doi: 10.1785/0120210250.
	Hua W, Chen Z L, Zheng S H. 2009. A study on segmentation characteristics of aftershock source parameters of Wenchuan M8.0 earthquake in 2008. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 52(2): 365-371.
	Huang Y H, Ellsworth W L, Beroza G C. 2017. Stress drops of induced and tectonic earthquakes in the central United States are indistinguishable. Science Advances, 3(8): e1700772, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700772.
	Ide S, Beroza G C, Prejean S G, et al. 2003. Apparent break in earthquake scaling due to path and site effects on deep borehole recordings. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 108(B5): 2271, doi: 10.1029/2001JB001617.
	Ji C, Archuleta R J, Wang Y F. 2022. Variability of spectral estimates of stress drop reconciled by radiated energy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 112(4): 1871-1885, doi: 10.1785/0120210321.
	Jin Z Y, Fialko Y. 2021. Coseismic and early postseismic deformation due to the 2021 M7.4 Maduo (China) earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(21): e2021GL095213, doi: 10.1029/2021GL095213.
	Kanamori H. 1986. Rupture process of subduction-zone earthquakes. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 14: 293-322. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ea.14.050186.001453
	Kaneko Y, Shearer P M. 2014. Seismic source spectra and estimated stress drop derived from cohesive-zone models of circular subshear rupture. Geophysical Journal International, 197(2): 1002-1015, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu030.
	Kennett B L N. 1989. On the nature of regional seismic phases-I. Phase representations for Pn, Pg, Sn, Lg. Geophysical Journal, 98(3): 447-456. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1989.tb02281.x
	Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt C D, Vecchi M P. 1983. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220(4598): 671-680. doi: 10.1126/science.220.4598.671
	Kreemer C, Blewitt G, Klein E C. 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 15(10): 3849-3889, doi: 10.1002/2014GC005407.
	Li Y L, Wang C S, Dai J G, et al. 2015. Propagation of the deformation and growth of the Tibetan-Himalayan orogen: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 143: 36-61, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.01.001.
	Li Z F, Zhou B G. 2015. Analysis on the meaning of the asperity and barrier located on the seismic fault plane. Recent Developments in World Seismology (in Chinese), (5): 22-27, doi: 10.3696/j.issn.0235-4975.2015.05.005.
	Liang M J, Zhou R J, Yan L, et al. 2014. The relationships between neotectonic activity of the middle segment of Dari fault and its geomorphological response, Qinghai province, China. Seismology and Geology (in Chinese), 36(1): 28-38, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0263-4967.2014.01.003.
	Liu C Y, Bai L, Hong S Y, et al. 2021. Coseismic deformation of the 2021 M_W7.4 Maduo earthquake from joint inversion of InSAR, GPS, and teleseismic data. Earthquake Science, 34(5): 436-446, doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0050.
	Liu J, Zheng S H, Huang Y L. 2003. The inversion of non-elasticity coefficient, source parameters, site response using genetic algorithms. Acta Seismologica Sinica (in Chinese), 25(2): 211-218.
	Liu J H, Hu J, Li Z W, et al. 2022. Complete three-dimensional coseismic displacements due to the 2021 Maduo earthquake in Qinghai Province, China from Sentinel-1 and ALOS-2 SAR images. Science China Earth Sciences, 65(4): 687-697, doi: 10.1007/s11430-021-9868-9.
	Liu X W, Chen Q, Yang Y H, et al. 2022. The 2021 M_W7.4 Maduo earthquake: coseismic slip model, triggering effect of historical earthquakes and implications for adjacent fault rupture potential. Journal of Geodynamics, 151: 101920, doi: 10.1016/j.jog.2022.101920.
	Ma X, Zhao L F, Xie X B, et al. 2023. Warm versus cold crust in the Tien Shan orogenic belt revealed by seismic Lg attenuation tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 233(3): 2142-2154, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggad055.
	Madariaga R. 1976. Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 66(3): 639-666. doi: 10.1785/BSSA0660030639
	Mayeda K, Malagnini L, Walter W R. 2007. A new spectral ratio method using narrow band coda envelopes: Evidence for non-self-similarity in the Hector Mine sequence. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(11): L11303, doi: 10.1029/2007GL030041.
	Mildon Z K, Roberts G P, Faure Walker J P, et al. 2019. Coulomb pre-stress and fault bends are ignored yet vital factors for earthquake triggering and hazard. Nature Communications, 10: 2744, doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10520-6.
	Munafò I, Malagnini L, Chiaraluce L. 2016. On the relationship between M_W and M_L for small earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 106(5): 2402-2408, doi: 10.1785/0120160130.
	Munguía L, Brune J N. 1984. High stress drop events in the Victoria, Baja California earthquake swarm of 1978 March. Geophysical Journal International, 76(3): 725-752. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1984.tb01919.x
	Ni S D, Wang W T, Li L. 2010. The April 14th, 2010 Yushu earthquake, a devastating earthquake with foreshocks. Science China Earth Sciences, 53(6): 791-793, doi: 10.1007/s11430-010-0083-2.
	Nuttli O W. 1973. Seismic wave attenuation and magnitude relations for eastern North America. Journal of Geophysical Research, 78(5): 876-885. doi: 10.1029/JB078i005p00876
	Ottemöller L. 2002. Lg wave Q tomography in Central America. Geophysical Journal International, 150(1): 295-302. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-246X.2002.01715.x
	Ottemöller L, Shapiro N M, Singh S K, et al. 2002. Lateral variation of Lg wave propagation in southern Mexico. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 107(B1): ESE 3-1 - ESE 3-13, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000206.
	Ottemöller L, Havskov J. 2003. Moment magnitude determination for local and regional earthquakes based on source spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 93(1): 203-214, doi: 10.1785/0120010220.
	Paige C C, Saunders M A. 1982. LSQR: an algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse least squares. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 8(1): 43-71. doi: 10.1145/355984.355989
	Pan J W, Bai M K, Li C, et al. 2021. Coseismic surface rupture and seismogenic structure of the 2021-05-22 Maduo (Qinghai) M_S7.4 earthquake. Acta Geologica Sinica (in Chinese), 95(6): 1655-1670.
	Pan J W, Li H B, Chevalier M L, et al. 2022. Co-seismic rupture of the 2021, M7.4 Maduo earthquake (northern Tibet): Short-cutting of the Kunlun fault big bend. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 594: 117703, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2022.117703.
	Pasyanos M E, Matzel E M, Walter W R, et al. 2009. Broad-band Lg attenuation modelling in the Middle East. Geophysical Journal International, 177(3): 1166-1176, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04128.x.
	Phillips W S, Hartse H E, Taylor S R, et al. 2000.1 Hz Lg Q tomography in Central Asia. Geophysical Research Letters, 27(20): 3425-3428. doi: 10.1029/2000GL011482
	Prieto G A, Shearer P M, Vernon F L, et al. 2004. Earthquake source scaling and self-similarity estimation from stacking P and S spectra. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 109(B8): B08310, doi: 10.1029/2004JB003084.
	Ren J J, Zhang Z W, Gai H L, et al. 2021. Typical Riedel shear structures of the coseismic surface rupture zone produced by the 2021 M_W7.3 Maduo earthquake, Qinghai, China, and the implications for seismic hazards in the block interior. Natural Hazards Research, 1(4): 145-152, doi: 10.1016/j.nhres.2021.10.001.
	Ren J J, Xu X W, Zhang G W, et al. 2022. Coseismic surface ruptures, slip distribution, and 3D seismogenic fault for the 2021 M_W7.3 Maduo earthquake, central Tibetan Plateau, and its tectonic implications. Tectonophysics, 827: 229275, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2022.229275.
	Ringdal F, Marshall P D, Alewine R W. 1992. Seismic yield determination of Soviet underground nuclear explosions at the Shagan river test site. Geophysical Journal International, 109(1): 65-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1992.tb00079.x
	Sarkar S, Jaiswal N, Singh C, et al. 2021. Source spectral studies using Lg wave in western Tibet. Journal of Seismology, 25(2): 625-638, doi: 10.1007/s10950-020-09971-y.
	Sato T, Hirasawa T. 1973. Body wave spectra from propagating shear cracks. Journal of Physics of the Earth, 21(4): 415-431. doi: 10.4294/jpe1952.21.415
	Schlittenhardt J. 2001. Teleseismic Lg of Semipalatinsk and Novaya Zemlya nuclear explosions recorded by the GRF (Gräfenberg) array: Comparison with regional Lg (BRV) and their potential for accurate yield estimation. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 158(11): 2253-2274, doi: 10.1007/PL00001148.
	Shaw B E, Richards-Dinger K, Dieterich J H. 2015. Deterministic model of earthquake clustering shows reduced stress drops for nearby aftershocks. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(21): 9231-9238, doi: 10.1002/2015GL066082.
	Shearer P M, Prieto G A, Hauksson E. 2006. Comprehensive analysis of earthquake source spectra in southern California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B6): B06303, doi: 10.1029/2005JB003979.
	Shearer P M, Abercrombie R E, Trugman D T, et al. 2019. Comparing EGF methods for estimating corner frequency and stress drop from P wave spectra. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 124(4): 3966-3986 doi: 10.1029/2018JB016957.
	Shearer P M, Abercrombie R E, Trugman D T. 2022. Improved stress drop estimates for M1.5 to 4 earthquakes in southern California from 1996 to 2019. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(7): e2022JB024243, doi: 10.1029/2022JB024243.
	Shen L, Zhao L F, Xie X B, et al. 2023. Stress drops calculated from seismic Lg-waves and their applications for investigating the typical earthquake sequences in the eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau. Reviews of Geophysiscs and Planetary Physics (in Chinese), 54(5): 512-531, doi: 10.19975/j.dqyxx.2022-038.
	Street R. 1984. Some recent Lg phase displacement spectral densities and their implications with respect to the prediction of ground motions in Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(2): 757-762. doi: 10.1785/BSSA0740020757
	Street R L, Herrmann R B, Nuttli O W. 1975. Spectral characteristics of the Lg wave generated by central United States earthquakes. Geophysical Journal International, 41(1): 51-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1975.tb05484.x
	Sumy D F, Neighbors C J, Cochran E S, et al. 2017. Low stress drops observed for aftershocks of the 2011 M_W5.7 Prague, Oklahoma, earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122(5): 3813-3834, doi: 10.1002/2016jb013153.
	Tapponnier P, Xu Z Q, Roger F, et al. 2001. Oblique stepwise rise and growth of the Tibet Plateau. Science, 294(5547): 1671-1677, doi: 10.1126/science.105978.
	Tocheport A, Rivera L, van der Woerd J. 2006. A study of the 14 November 2001 Kokoxili earthquake: history and geometry of the rupture from teleseismic data and field observations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(5): 1729-1741, doi: 10.1785/0120050200.
	Trugman D T, Shearer P M. 2017. Application of an improved spectral decomposition method to examine earthquake source scaling in Southern California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122(4): 2890-2910, doi: 10.1002/2017jb013971.
	Trugman D T. 2020. Stress-drop and source scaling of the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 110(4): 1859-1871 doi: 10.1785/0120200009.
	Wang D J, Wang D Z, Zhao B, et al. 2022.2021 Qinghai MadoiM_W7.4 earthquake coseismic deformation field and fault-slip distribution using GNSS observations. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 65(2): 537-551, doi: 10.6038/cjg2022P0568.
	Wang S, Song C, Li S S, et al. 2022. Resolving co- and early post-seismic slip variations of the 2021 M_W7.4 Madoiearthquake in east Bayan Har block with a block-wide distributed deformation mode from satellite synthetic aperture radar data. Earth Planet. Phys. , 6(1): 108-122, doi: 10.26464/epp2022007.
	Wang W L, Fang L H, Wu J P, et al. 2021. Aftershock sequence relocation of the 2021 M_S7.4 Maduo Earthquake, Qinghai, China. Science China Earth Sciences, 64(8): 1371-1380, doi: 10.1007/s11430-021-9803-3.
	Wang W M, He J K, Wang X, et al. 2022. Rupture process models of the Yangbi and Maduo earthquakes that struck the eastern Tibetan Plateau in May 2021. Science Bulletin, 67(5): 466-469, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2021.11.009.
	Wu W W, Wu P, Wei Y L, et al. 2017. Regional characteristics of stress state of main seismic active faults in mid-northern part of Sichuan-Yunnan block. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 60(5): 1735-1745, doi: 10.6038/cjg20170511.
	Wu W W, Long F, Liang M J, et al. 2020. Spatial and temporal variations in earthquake stress drops between the 2008 Wenchuan and 2013 Lushan earthquakes. Acta Geologica Sinica-English Edition, 94(5): 1635-1650, doi: 10.1111/1755-6724.14582.
	Wu Z L, Chen Y T, Mozaffari P. 1999. Scaling of stress drop and high-frequency fall-off of source spectra. Acta Seismol. Sinica (in Chinese), 21(5): 460-468.
	Xie J, Mitchell B J. 1990. Attenuation of multiphase surface waves in the Basin and Range province, part I: Lg and Lg coda. Geophysical Journal International, 102(1): 121-137. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1990.tb00535.x
	Xie X B, Zhao L F. 2018. The seismic characterization of North Korea underground nuclear tests. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 61(3): 889-904, doi: 10.6038/cjg2018L0677.
	Xu Z G, Liang S S, Zhang G W, et al. 2021. Analysis of seismogenic structure of Madoi, Qinghai M_S7.4 earthquake on May 22, 2021. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 64(8): 2657-2670, doi: 10.6038/cjg2021P0390.
	Yang Z Q, Zhao D P, Dong Y P, et al. 2022. Crustal flow and fluids affected the 2021 M7.4 Maduo earthquake in Northeast Tibet. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 225: 105050, doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2021.105050.
	Yin A, Harrison T M. 2000. Geologic evolution of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen. Annual Review of Earth & Planetary Sciences, 28: 211-280.
	Yue H, Shen Z K, Zhao Z Y, et al. 2022. Rupture process of the 2021 M7.4 Maduo earthquake and implication for deformation mode of the Songpan-Ganzi terrane in Tibetan Plateau. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(23): e2116445119, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2116445119.
	Zhan Y, Liang M J, Sun X Y, et al. 2021. Deep structure and seismogenic pattern of the 2021.5.22 Madoi(Qinghai) M_S7.4 earthquake. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 64(7): 2232-2252, doi: 10.6038/cjg2021O0521.
	Zhang G W, Lei J S, Sun C Q. 2014. Relocation of the 12 February 2014 Yutian, Xinjiang, Mainshock (M_S7.3) and its aftershock sequence. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 57(3): 1012-1020, doi: 10.6038/cjg20140330.
	Zhang G W, Li Y J, Hu X P. 2022a. Nucleation mechanism of the 2021 M_W7.4 Maduo earthquake, NE Tibetan Plateau: Insights from seismic tomography and numerical modeling. Tectonophysics, 839: 229528, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2022.229528.
	Zhang L, Zhao L F, Xie X B, et al. 2022b. Lateral variations in crustal Lg attenuation in and around the Hangay Dome, Mongolia. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 111(2): 591-606, doi: 10.1007/s00531-021-02131-8.
	Zhang P Z, Deng Q D, Zhang G M, et al. Active tectonic blocks and strong earthquakes in the continent of China. Science in China (Series S), 2003, 46 (Suppl. ): 13-24.
	Zhang X, Feng W P, Du H L, et al. 2022c. Supershear rupture during the 2021 M_W7.4 Maduo, China, earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(6): e2022GL097984, doi: 10.1029/2022GL097984.
	Zhao C P, Chen Z L, Hua W, et al. 2011. Study on source parameters of small to moderate earthquakes in the main seismic active regions, China mainland. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 54(6): 1478-1489, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0001-5733.2011.06.007.
	Zhao L F, Xie X B, Wang W M, et al. 2008. Regional seismic characteristics of the 9 October 2006 North Korean nuclear test. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(6): 2571-2589, doi: 10.1785/0120080128.
	Zhao L F, Xie X B, He J K, et al. 2013. Crustal flow pattern beneath the Tibetan Plateau constrained by regional Lg-wave Q tomography. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 383: 113-122, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.09.038.
	Zhao L F, Mousavi S M. 2018. Lateral variation of crustal Lg attenuation in Eastern North America. Sci. Rep. , 8: 7285, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-25649-5.
	Zhao L F, Xie X B, He X, et al. 2022. Seismic Lg-wave attenuation tomography: method, algorithm, data processing flow and application. Reviews of Geophysiscs and Planetary Physics (in Chinese), 53(6): 721-744, doi: 10.19975/j.dqyxx.2022-024.
	Zheng X F, Ouyang B, Zhang D N, et al. 2009. Technical system construction of Data Backup Centre for China Seismograph Network and the data support to researches on the Wenchuan earthquake. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 52(5): 1412-1417, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0001-5733.2009.05.031.
	Zhu L Y, Ji L Y, Liu C J. 2021. Interseismic slip rate and locking along the Maqin-Maqu Segment of the East Kunlun Fault, Northern Tibetan Plateau, based on Sentinel-1 images. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 211: 104703, doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2021.104703.
	曹学来, 常利军, 鲁来玉等. 2022.2021年青海玛多M_S7.4地震震源区横波分裂变化特征. 地球物理学报, 65(5): 1644-1659, doi: 10.6038/cjg2022P0944.
	冯雅杉, 熊熊, 单斌等. 2022.2021年玛多M_S7.4地震导致的周边地区库仑应力加载及地震活动性变化. 中国科学: 地球科学, 52(6): 1100-1112, doi: 10.1360/SSTe-2021-0201.
	华卫, 陈章立, 郑斯华. 2009.2008年汶川8.0级地震序列震源参数分段特征的研究. 地球物理学报, 52(2): 365-371. http://www.geophy.cn/article/id/cjg_915
	李正芳, 周本刚. 2015. 地震断层面上凹凸体和障碍体含义的解析. 国际地震动态, (5): 22-27, doi: 10.3696/j.issn.0235-4975.2015.05.005.
	梁明剑, 周荣军, 闫亮等. 2014. 青海达日断裂中段构造活动与地貌发育的响应关系探讨. 地震地质, 36(1): 28-38, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2014.01.003.
	刘杰, 郑斯华, 黄玉龙. 2003. 利用遗传算法反演非弹性衰减系数、震源参数和场地响应. 地震学报, 25(2): 211-218. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZXB200302012.htm
	刘计洪, 胡俊, 李志伟等. 2022. 融合哨兵1号和ALOS-2数据的2021年青海玛多地震高精度三维同震形变场研究. 中国科学: 地球科学, 52(5): 882-892, doi: 10.1360/N072021-0172.
	倪四道, 王伟涛, 李丽. 2010.2010年4月14日玉树地震: 一个有前震的破坏性地震. 中国科学: 地球科学, 40(5): 535-537, doi: 10.1360/zd2010-40-5-535.
	潘家伟, 白明坤, 李超等. 2021.2021年5月22日青海玛多M_S7.4地震地表破裂带及发震构造. 地质学报, 95(6): 1655-1670, doi: 10.19762/j.cnki.dizhixuebao.2021166.
	沈琳, 赵连锋, 谢小碧等. 2023. 利用Lg波计算地震应力降的方法及在青藏高原东缘典型震例中的应用. 地球与行星物理论评, 54(5): 512-531, doi: 10.19975/j.dqyxx.2022-038.
	王迪晋, 王东振, 赵斌等. 2022.2021年青海玛多M_W7.4地震GNSS同震形变场及其断层滑动分布. 地球物理学报, 65(2): 537-551, doi: 10.6038/cjg2022P0568.
	王未来, 房立华, 吴建平等. 2021.2021年青海玛多MS7.4地震序列精定位研究. 中国科学: 地球科学, 51(7): 1193-1202, doi: 10.1360/SSTe-2021-0149.
	吴微微, 吴朋, 魏娅玲等. 2017. 川滇活动块体中-北部主要活动断裂带现今应力状态的分区特征. 地球物理学报, 60(5): 1735-1745, doi: 10.6038/cjg20170511.
	吴忠良, 陈运泰, Mozaffari P. 1999. 应力降的标度性质与震源谱高频衰减常数. 地震学报, 21(5): 462-468. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DZXB199905001.htm
	谢小碧, 赵连锋. 2018. 朝鲜地下核试验的地震学观测. 地球物理学报, 61(3): 889-904. http://www.geophy.cn/article/doi/10.6038/cjg2018L0677
	徐志国, 梁姗姗, 张广伟等. 2021.2021年5月22日青海玛多M_S7.4地震发震构造分析. 地球物理学报, 64(8): 2657-2670, doi: 10.6038/cjg2021P0390.
	詹艳, 梁明剑, 孙翔宇等. 2022.2021年5月22日青海玛多M_S7.4地震深部环境及发震构造模式. 地球物理学报, 64(7): 2232-2252, doi: 10.6038/cjg2021O0521.
	张广伟, 雷建设, 孙长青. 2014.2014年2月12日新疆于田M_S7.3级地震主震及余震序列重定位研究. 地球物理学报, 57(3): 1012-1020, doi: 10.6038/cjg20140330.
	张培震, 邓起东, 张国民等. 2003. 中国大陆的强震活动与活动地块. 中国科学: D辑, 33(S1): 12-20. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JDXK200407000.htm
	赵翠萍, 陈章立, 华卫等. 2011. 中国大陆主要地震活动区中小地震震源参数研究. 地球物理学报, 54(6): 1478-1489, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0001-5733.2011.06.007.
	赵连锋, 谢小碧, 何熹等. 2022. 地震Lg波衰减成像方法、算法、数据处理流程及应用. 地球与行星物理论评, 53(6): 721-744, doi: 10.19975/j.dqyxx.2022-024.
	郑秀芬, 欧阳飚, 张东宁等. 2009. "国家数字测震台网数据备份中心"技术系统建设及其对汶川大地震研究的数据支撑. 地球物理学报, 52(5): 1412-1417, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0001-5733.2009.05.031.