Decoding stress patterns of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake doublet

Decoding stress patterns of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake doublet | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Decoding stress patterns of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake doublet Jianquan Chen, Luca Dal Zilio, Hang Zhang, Guangliang Yang, Yaolin Shi, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2922091/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Earthquake interaction across multiple time scales can reveal complex stress evolution and rupture patterns. Here, we investigate the stress change's role in the 2023 Mw 7.8 and 7.6 earthquake doublet along the Eastern Anatolian Fault (EAF), using simulations of 21 historical earthquakes (M ≥ 6.1) from 1822 to 2023. Focusing on six cascading sub-events during the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Sequence, we reveal how one sub-event's stress alteration can impact the emergence and rupture dynamics of subsequent sub-events. Our analysis unveils that the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake was deferred by 52 years due to stress shadow effects from historical events, while the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake was accelerated by 26 years as a result of stress increases from historical events and ultimately triggered by the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake. This study underscores the importance of grasping earthquake preparation, rupture initiation, and propagation in the context of intricate fault systems worldwide. Based on these results, we draw attention to heightened seismic hazards in the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap of the EAF and the northern section of the Dead Sea Fault, necessitating increased monitoring and preparedness efforts. Earth and environmental sciences/Solid Earth sciences/Seismology Earth and environmental sciences/Solid Earth sciences/Geodynamics Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction On February 6th, 2023, a devastating earthquake doublet (Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6) shook southeastern Turkey and northern Syria (USGS 2023a, b), causing widespread damage, homelessness, and over fifty thousand fatalities (Dal Zilio and Ampuero, 2023). The first quake (Mw 7.8) struck along the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) at 37.225°N 37.021°E, while the second (Mw 7.6) occurred on the Cardak Fault (CF) at 38.024°N 37.203°E, a splay fault linked to the EAF's Erkenek segment (Duman and Erme, 2013) (Fig. 1). Both shallow-depth main shocks (10km-14.5km) generated intense ground motion, leading to catastrophic regional impacts (USGS 2023a, b; Melgar et al., 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023; Mai et al., 2023). Previous studies have inversed kinematic fault slip models of the Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquakes using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and seismic data (Barbot et al., 2023; USGS 2023a, b; Melgar et al., 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023; Zahradník et al., 2023; Mai et al., 2023). These studies suggest that each main shock involved three sub-events, rupturing three segments in the 2023 earthquake doublet (USGS 2023a, b; Melgar et al. 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023; Mai et al., 2023). The rare occurrence of such large magnitude earthquake doublets with multiple sub-events within nine hours warrants investigation into their interactions. Understanding how stress changes induced by preceding sub-events influence the occurrence and behavior of subsequent sub-events can provide insights into the rupture process's spatiotemporal evolution. However, limited research has explored the interactions between cascading sub-events in earthquake sequences or doublets. Sunbul (2019) previously identified that the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake's Pazarcik segment was stress-loaded by historical earthquakes before 2019. Notably, the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake, which occurred near the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake rupture's northeastern end (Güvercin et al., 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023), was absent from Sunbul's (2019) stress calculations (Fig. 1). This raises questions about the Elazig earthquake's potential impact on the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake rupture process. Considering the Elazig earthquake's magnitude, proximity to the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake rupture, and exclusion from previous stress calculations, it's crucial to evaluate its stress change contribution along the EAF. Furthermore, the stress change on the CF caused by pre-2023 historical earthquakes and its influence on the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake remain unclear. The Eastern Anatolian Fault (EAF), a critical tectonic boundary separating the Arabian and Anatolian plates, spans approximately 580 km from its intersection with the North Anatolian Fault (NAF) in the northeast to its connection with the Dead Sea Fault (DSF) in the southwest (Muehlberger and Gordon, 1987; Reilinger et al., 2006; Sunbul, 2019). Two seismic gaps, the Kahramanmaras-Malatya and Elazig-Bingol gaps, have been identified on the EAF based on seismic data from 1822 to 2019 (Nalbant et al., 2002; Sunbul, 2019; Güvercin et al., 2022). The 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake filled the Kahramanmaras-Malatya gap (USGS 2023a; Melgar et al., 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023; Mai et al., 2023) (Fig. 1). Numerous large earthquakes (M ≥ 6.1) have occurred within and near the EAF over the past two centuries, as evidenced by the historical earthquake catalogue. A key question arises: how do stress perturbations resulting from these earthquakes influence seismic activity and hazards along the EAF? Another essential question is how the stress changes induced by past earthquakes affected the initiation, propagation, and termination of the 2023 earthquake doublet. Here, we address these questions using simulations of the Coulomb Failure Stress(ΔCFS) induced by 21 historical earthquakes (M≥ 6.1), including the 2023 doublet, based on existing focal mechanisms in and around the EAF from 1822 to 2023. Our goal was to evaluate spatiotemporal stress variations along the EAF, elucidate the interactions between the six cascading sub-events of the 2023 doublet, and assess future seismic hazards in the region. Our research provides insights into earthquake rupture initiation, propagation, and termination within the EAF and other large-scale strike-slip fault zones. Moreover, our findings can inform disaster prevention and relief strategies in southeastern Turkey, northern Syria, and Lebanon. We computed ΔCFS values before, during, and after the 2023 doublet, caused by 21 historical earthquakes in and around the EAF from 1822 to 2023. We calculated the ΔCFS values at a 10-km depth, near the hypocenter depth recommended by USGS (USGS, 2023a, b), considering both co-seismic stress changes and post-seismic stress relaxation. Our findings show that the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake was delayed by 52 years due to stress shadow effects from historical events, while the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake was accelerated by 26 years as a result of stress increases from historical events and ultimately triggered by the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake. These results highlight the need for increased monitoring and preparedness in the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap of the EAF and the northern section of the Dead Sea Fault. The delayed Mw 7.8 earthquake The initiation point of the Mw 7.8 earthquake's first sub-event (S1) (segment AB in Fig. 2 j) was not on the main strand of the EAF but on a splay fault (USGS 2023a ; Melgar et al., 2023 ; Okuwaki et al., 2023 ; Zahradník et al., 2023 ; Mai et al., 2023 ). Our results showed a release of stress over the entire S1 rupture, with a minimum ΔCFS of -584 kPa prior to the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake, due to 19 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1–11, 14–21) between 1822 and 2022 (Fig. 2 a). A decrease of -154 kPa in ΔCFS was observed at the hypocenter (Fig. 2 a). Stress shadow effects inhibiting earthquake activity have been observed in previous studies, such as those on the San Andreas Fault system, eastern Tibet, and Southern Tibet. We suggest that the unloaded stress on the earthquake hypocenter, resulting from historical earthquake interactions in the EAF over the past two centuries, delayed the S1 rupture of the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake. Based on the interseismic tectonic loading Coulomb stressing rate of 3 kPa/a (Sunbul, 2019 ), the ΔCFS of 154 kPa was equivalent to tectonic loading for approximately 52 years. Consequently, we deduced that the stress shadow on the S1 rupture zone, caused by earthquake interactions in the EAF between 1822 and 2023, delayed the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake by 52 years. Deciphering the Mw 7.8 earthquake rupture propagation and termination Our results show that stress in the Pazarcik segment (PS in Fig. 2 (b)) of the second sub-event (S2) rupture is increased with the maximum ΔCFS value of 593 kPa at the very southwestern end prior to its rupture caused by 18 earthquakes (Nos. 1–10, 14–21) between 1822 and 2019 (Fig. 2 b). This result is consistent with previous findings of loaded stress on the Pazarcik segment by historical earthquakes before 2019 (Nalbant et al., 2002 ; Sunbul, 2019 ). Moreover, we assess the stress change on the S2 rupture caused by the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake (No. 11) (Fig. 2 d) and the S1 of the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No. 12 (S1)) (Fig. 2 f), which were not included in previous stress calculations (Nalbant et al., 2002 ; Sunbul, 2019 ). Our analysis shows that the already stressed Pazarcik segment on the S2 rupture is further stress-promoted, reaching a maximum stress value of approximately 471 kPa at its southwestern end prior to its rupture, caused by the S1 event (Fig. 2 f). Based on the interseismic tectonic loading Coulomb stressing rate of 3 kPa/a (Sunbul, 2019 ), the ΔCFS of 471 kPa is equivalent to tectonic loading for approximately 157 years, signaling strong physical connection between the S1 and S2. Therefore, we suggest that the S1 triggers the S2, resulting in its northeastward rupture propagation along the Pazarcik segment of the EAF. Notably, a stress shadow is observed with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately − 5461 kPa to the northeastern end of the S2 rupture (Fig. 2 h), which is mainly contributed by the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake (Fig. 2 d). This stress shadow, due to its relatively low stress level, may potentially halt the northeastern rupture of the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake, in line with the stress shadow theory as reported by previous studies (Simpson et al., 1988 ; Harris and Simpson, 1996 ; Harris, 1998 ; Freed and Lin, 2001 ; Mallman and Parsons, 2008 ; Liu et al., 2018 , 2020 , 2022 ; Liu and Shi; 2021 ). The phenomenon of stress shadow and its effect on earthquake rupture termination is not exclusive to the EAF, as similar observations have been made in other locations. For instance, stress shadow effects were observed on the Logmen Shan fault in eastern Tibet during the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, as well as on the Palu-Koro fault in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, during the 2018 Mw 7.5 Palu earthquake (Liu et al., 2018 , 2020 ; Liu and Shi, 2021 ). These findings provide insights that could potentially enhance our understanding of the reasons for earthquake rupture propagation and termination on a global scale, including observations of unilaterally eastward rupture in the 2002 Mw 7.9 Denali fault earthquake, as reported by Eberhart-Phillips et al. ( 2003 ) and Hreinsdóttir et al. ( 2003 ). The triggered Mw 7.6 earthquake — aseismic chain reaction Our research demonstrates that stress is elevated almost over the entire fourth sub-event (S4) rupture (segment GH in Fig. 3 l) before its rupture by historical earthquakes (Fig. 3 i). We find that the increased ΔCFS value of 78 kPa and 252 kPa is caused by 19 earthquakes (Nos. 1–11, 14–21) (Fig. 3 a) between 1822 and 2022 and the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No. 12) (Fig. 3 d), respectively. Given the interseismic tectonic loading Coulomb stressing rate of 3 kPa/a (Sunbul, 2019 ), the ΔCFS of 78 kPa and 225 kPa corresponds to tectonic loading for approximately 26 and 75 years, respectively. Thus, we suggest that the historical earthquake activities between 1822 and 2022 bring the CF close to failure, with a loaded stress on the S4 rupture equivalent to approximately 26 years of tectonic loading. The 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake adds further stress to the S4 rupture, ultimately triggering the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake by advancing it for approximately 75 years Interplay between sub-events by stress triggering and shadow We find that the fifth sub-event (S5) rupture segment (GF in Fig. 3 l) is largely brought away from failure due to stress unloading, with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately − 197 at its northeastern end prior to the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake caused by 19 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1–10, 14–21) (Fig. 3 b) and the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No. 12) (Fig. 3 e). However, it is brought back to failure by the S4 of the Mw 7.6 earthquake (No. 13 (S4)) due to stress loading over the entire S5 rupture, with the highest ΔCFS value of approximately 1647 kPa at its northeastern end (Fig. 3 g). We believe that ΔCFS with this high value is large enough to trigger the S5, since it is much higher than the threshold (10 kPa) for triggering earthquakes (Reasenberg& Simpson, 1992 ). The S6 rupture (HI in Fig. 3 l) is also stress unloaded, with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately − 2502 kPa at its southwestern end, due to the same 20 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1–12, 14–21) (Figs. 3 c and 3 f). Although the S4 increases stress over the entire S6 rupture, with the highest ΔCFS value of 1279 kPa at its southwestern end (Fig. 3 h), this positive stress is not sufficient to compensate for the negative stress caused by the 20 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1–12, 14–21) and bring the S6 rupture segment back to failure. Finally, the entire S6 rupture is located in the stress shadow, with the minimum ΔCFS value of approximately − 1457 kPa observed at its southwestern end before its rupture (Fig. 3 k). Similarly, we find that the Amanos segment (CD in Fig. 2 j) of the S3 rupture is also located in the stress shadow, with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately − 5574 kPa, before its rupture due to unloaded stress by historical earthquakes between 1822 and 2023 (Fig. 2 i). These results indicate that the intricate interplay among the six sub-events through stress triggering and shadow effects during the 2023 earthquake doublet is a complex phenomenon. Notably, the preceding sub-event not only serves to promote the subsequent sub-events but also demonstrates a propensity to delay such events. This observation aligns with prior proposals which suggest that a static stress change occurring along a fault can give rise to the promotion or delay of an induced instability on the secondary fault (Belardinelli et al., 2003 ). Based on our observations of positive stress transfer between the S1 and S2, S4 and S5, and S4 and S6, with the maximum ΔCFS values of 1064 kPa, 1647 kPa, and 1279 kPa, respectively, we propose that static stress changes induced by preceding sub-events play a significant role in promoting rupture propagation of subsequent sub-events and its migration between multiple segments during the 2023 earthquake doublet. It is important to point out that the factors that control the initiation of those sub-events located in the stress shadow, such as S1, the Erkenek segment of S2 (Fig. 2 h), S3, and S6, remain unclear. Note that fault rupture initiation and propagation are significantly influenced by the stress on the fault prior to its ultimate rupture (Duan and Oglesby, 2006 ; Duan, 2010 ; Wen et al., 2012 ; Payne and Duan, 2015 ; Liu et al., 2018 ). The stress evolution before and during an earthquake sequence or doublet, rupturing several segments in a complex fault system, is complex. The stress level on the first sub-event is mainly controlled by inter-seismic tectonic stress accumulation (Duan and Oglesby, 2005 , 2006 , 2007 ; Liu et al., 2016a , 2016b , 2017 ) and static stress change induced by previous historical earthquakes on and nearby the target fault (Reasenberg and Simpson, 1992 ; Harris, 1998 ; Stein, 1999 ; Chen et al., 2022 ; Liu et al., 2018 , 2020 , 2022 ). In contrast, stress on subsequent sub-events requires extra consideration of both static and dynamic stress changes induced by preceding sub-events during the earthquake sequence or doublet (Antonioli et al., 2002 ; Belardinelli et al., 1999 ; Belardinelli and Bizzarri, 2003; Gabriel et al., 2022 ). Our results provide a unified interpretation on the static stress change on each sub-event induced by 19 historical earthquakes before the 2023 earthquake doublet. Strong earthquake-induced static stress variation along the segments of the six sub-events was observed prior to their corresponding ruptures (Fig. 5 ). To gain a better understanding of the reasons behind the rupture initiation of those sub-events such as S1, S3, and S6, future research should prioritize investigating the accumulation of inter-seismic tectonic loading stress on the seismogenic depth of the EAF and CF and the dynamic stress induced by preceding sub-events during the 2023 earthquake doublet. Overall, in this study demonstrates that earthquake trigger and delayed occur across various time scales ranging from seconds to hours and years. We reveal how the static stress changes induced by preceding sub-events can influence the occurrence and behavior of subsequent sub-events, and consequently on how the rupture process evolves over time and space with the example of the 2023 earthquake doublet. This is important for us to understand the role of earthquake-induced static stress change on earthquake dynamics at different stages of an earthquake cycle, including earthquake preparation, rupture initiation, propagation, and termination on multiple fault segments in structurally complex fault systems worldwide, such as the Mw 7.1 earthquake in Pakistan (Nissen et al., 2016 ), the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake in Niigata, Japan (Hikima, 2005 ), the 2009 Mw 8.1 Tonga-Samoa earthquake in the Tonga subduction zone (Fan et al., 2016 ), the 2012 great Mw 8.7 intraplate earthquake and the great Mw 8.2 aftershock in southwest of the Sumatra subduction zone (Yue et al., 2012 ), the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake in the Eastern California Shear Zone (Ramos et al., 2020 ; Gabriel et al., 2022 ), and the 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake in the Marlborough fault system in southern New Zealand (Ulrich et al., 2019 ). Raised hazards and seismic gaps Based on previous studies that provide paleoearthquake data and fault slip models (Ambraseys, 1989 ; Ambraseys& Jackson, 1998; Tan et al., 2011; Duman and Emre, 2013 ; USGS 2023a ; Melgar et al., 2023 ; Okuwaki et al., 2023 ), a seismic gap with a length of approximately 70 km still exists on the northeastern EAF, known as the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap (Fig. 6 b). This gap has been subjected to loading stress by 18 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1–10, 14–21) between 1822 and 2019 (Fig. 4 a), the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake (No. 11) (Fig. 4 b), the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No.12) (Fig. 4 c), and the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake(No. 13) (Fig. 4 d), with maximum ΔCFS values of 1541 kPa, 3 kPa, 7 kPa, and 4 kPa, respectively. The interseismic tectonic loading Coulomb stressing rate of 3 kPa/a (Sunbul, 2019 ) indicates that the maximum accumulated ΔCFS of 1547 kPa in the seismic gap after 2023 corresponds to tectonic loading for approximately 516 years (Fig. 4 e). As this seismic gap has not experienced a large earthquake for several hundred years (Nalbant et al., 2002 ; Sunbul, 2019 ), the accumulated stress in this gap raises concerns about future hazards. If the entire segment (70 km long) ruptures, a future earthquake with a magnitude greater than 7.2 may occur, releasing accumulated energy at a fault slip rate of approximately 10 mm/a over the past century (Koç and Kaymakc, 2013; Bayrak et al. 2015 ; Aktug et al. 2016 ;). Therefore, it is crucial to pay more attention to the regions between Palu and Ilica city in the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap of the EAF. The northern section of DSF contains another seismic gap, referred to as zone B in Fig. 1 , that has not experienced a large earthquake in more than 830 years, despite having been struck by more than three large earthquakes (M > 7.0) between 859 AD and 1408 AD (Meghraoui et al., 2003 ; Dal Zilio and Ampuero, 2023 ). This gap is located in an area densely populated with communities in southeastern Turkey, northern Syria, and Lebanon. Our results revealed that although stress was decreased over half of segment AB with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately − 504 kPa, it was increased over most of segments CD and EF with a maximum ΔCFS value of approximately 312 kPa (Fig. 5 d). This stress increment was mainly caused by two historical earthquakes (Nos. 1 and 3) that occurred on the Amanos segment of the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) (Fig. 5 a). The 2023 earthquake doublet also contributed to stress increment on segments CD and EF, with a maximum ΔCFS value of approximately 10 kPa (Fig. 5 b,c). Therefore, the increased seismic hazards due to the promoted stress in the seismic gap of the northern portion of the DAF should be given special attention. Methods According to the Coulomb failure criterion (Harris, 1998 ), the definition of ΔCFS is as follows: ΔCFS = Δτ s + µ' Δσ n (1), In the equation, Δτ s and Δσ n indicate the variations in the shear stress and the normal stress, respectively. µ' is the coefficient of equivalent friction, ranging between 0.2 and 0.8. The lithospheric model parameters were obtained from earlier seismic imaging studies(Ogden & Bastow, 2022 ; Ozacar et al., 2010 ; Vanacore et al., 2013 ; Medved et al., 2021 ; Kounoudiset al., 2018; Tesauro et al., 2018 ; Portner et al., 2018; Zhu, 2018 ) and estimates of effective viscosity (Hearn et al., 2009 ; Sunbul et al., 2016; Sunbul, 2019 ). A summary of the parameters of the layers in the lithospheric model can be found in Table S2 in Supporting Information. The upper and lower crusts had viscosities of 1.0 × 10 23 Pa.s and 1.0 × 10 19 Pa.s, respectively (Hearn et al., 2009 ; Sunbul et al., 2016; Sunbul, 2019 ). Moreover, the mantle's viscosity was estimated to be 5.0 × 10 18 Pa.s (Hearn et al., 2009 ; Sunbul et al., 2016; Sunbul, 2019 ). Additionally, the equivalent friction coefficient µ' was determined to be 0.4, as reported by King et al. ( 1994 ), providing a crucial metric for evaluating the model's predictive accuracy and reliability. Assuming viscoelastic rheology in the lithosphere of the eastern Anatolia Plate, we used the PSGRN/PSCMP code (Wang et al. 2003 , 2006 ) to calculate the earthquake stress caused by the dislocation sources in the layered gravitational lithospheric model. As an input of PSCMP, an earthquake is represented by a number of rectangular fault planes with different locations and orientations (strike, dip and rake). The details of the dislocation source models of the 21 historical earthquakes used in this study are summarized in Table S1 of the Supporting Information. The output of PSCMP includes the complete deformation field consisting of 3 displacement components and 6 stress (strain) components in the model at each time step. The normal and shear stress on a target fault plane with known orientations (strike, dip and rake) can be converted using the calculated stress components (Shi and Cao, 2010). Consequently, the ΔCFS on a target fault can be obtained using Eq. (1). More details about the ΔCFS calculation and PSGRN/PSCMP code, please refer to the previous publications by Wang et al. ( 2003 , 2006 ) and Shi and Cao (2010). Not that the epicenter, fault rupture trace, co-seismic dislocation, and magnitude of the historical earthquakes in EAF are not well determined because of the lack of good constraints. In this study we used rectangular planar patches with uniform fault slips and fixed source locations in the simulations of 18 historical earthquakes based on the empirical scaling laws and relationships defined by Wells and Coppersmith (1994). All these earthquake source parameters have been successfully used in investigating the earthquake-induced stress change or crustal deformation in the EAF in previous studies (Nalbant et al., 2002 ; Sunbul et al., 2016; Sunbul, 2019 ). Although varying source location and slip does not change the general earthquake-induced stress pattern, it may have impact on the stress value on the target faults to some extent (Liu et al., 2018 , 2020 , 2022 ; Liu and Shi, 2021 , 2022). Future research should be carried out to explore the influence of uncertainty of the historical earthquake parameters on the stress results. Declarations Acknowledgements: Chang Liu was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41974102). Guangliang Yang was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 42174104, U1939204) and Hubei provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (2022CFB350). Luca Dal Zilio was supported by the EU project “A Digital Twin for Geophysical Extremes” (DT-GEO) (No: 101058129) and the European Research Council (ERC) Synergy Grant “Fault Activation and Earthquake Rupture” (FEAR) (No 856559). Yaolin Shi was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. U1839207). We are grateful for Martin Mai for his suggestions. We would like to thank ÖmerBudor, Tianhaozhe Sun, Oğuz H. Göğüş, and Ebru ŞengülUluocak for helpful discussion. Data Availability Statement: The earthquake data used in this study is available at: https://zenodo.org/record/7875928#.ZEzmHXZBxPY References Aktug, B., Ozener, H., Dogru, A., Sabuncu, A., Turgut, B., Halicioglu, K., et al. (2016). Slip rates and seismic potential on the East Anatolian Fault System using an improved GPS velocity field. Journal of Geodynamics, 94–95, 1–12. Ambraseys & Jackson. (1998). Faulting associated with historical and recent earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Geophysical Journal International, 133(2), 390–406. Ambraseys, N. N. (1989). Temporary seismic quiescence: SE Turkey. Geophysical Journal International, 96(2), 311–331. Antonioli, A., Cocco, M., Das, S., & Henry, C. (2002). Dynamic stress triggering during the great 25 March 1998 Antarctic Plate earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(3), 896-903. Bayrak, E., Yılmaz, Ş., Softa, M., Türker, T., & Bayrak, Y. (2015). Earthquake hazard analysis for East Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey. Natural Hazards, 76(2), 1063–1077. Barbot, S., Luo, H., Wang, T., Hamiel, Y., Piatibratova, O., Javed, M.T., Braitenberg, C. and Gurbuz, G., 2023. Slip distribution of the February 6, 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey earthquake sequence in the East Anatolian Fault Zone. Seismica, 2(3). Belardinelli, M. E., Cocco, M., Coutant, O., & Cotton, F. (1999). Redistribution of dynamic stress during coseismic ruptures: Evidence for fault interaction and earthquake triggering. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 104(B7), 14925-14945. Belardinelli, M. E., Bizzarri, A., & Cocco, M. (2003). Earthquake triggering by static and dynamic stress changes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 108(B3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB001779 Chen J.Q., Liu, C., Zhang, H., Shi, Y.L., 2022. Seismic activities and hazards of the seismic gaps in the Haiyuan fault in northeastern Tibet: Insights from numerical modelling earthquake interaction. Earth and Space Science, 9(11): 1-14. Dal Zilio, L., & Ampuero, J.-P. (2023). Earthquake doublet in Turkey and Syria. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00747-z Der Woerd, J. V., Tapponnier, P., J. Ryerson, F., Meriaux, A.-S., Meyer, B., Gaudemer, Y., et al. (2002). Uniform postglacial slip-rate along the central 600 km of the Kunlun Fault (Tibet), from 26Al, 10Be, and 14C dating of riser offsets, and climatic origin of the regional morphology. Geophysical Journal International, 148(3), 356–388. Duan, B. (2010). Role of initial stress rotations in rupture dynamics and ground motion: A case study with implications for the Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 115(B5). Duan, B., Oglesby, D.D., 2005. Multicycle dynamics of nonplanar strike-slip faults. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1978–2012, 110. Duan, B., Oglesby, D.D., 2006. Heterogeneous fault stresses from previous earthquakes and the effect on dynamics of parallel strike-slip faults. J. Geophys. Res. Sol. Ea 111. Duan, B., Oglesby, D.D., 2007. Nonuniform prestress from prior earthquakes and the effect on dynamics of branched fault systems. J. Geophys. Res. 112 Duman, T. Y., & Emre, Ö. (2013). The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 372(1), 495–529. Eberhart-Phillips, D., Haeussler, P. J., Freymueller, J. T., Frankel, A. D., Rubin, C. M., Craw, P., et al. (2003). The 2002 Denali fault earthquake, Alaska: A large magnitude, slip-partitioned event. Science, 300(5622), 1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082703 Fan, W., Shearer, P. M., Ji, C., & Bassett, D. (2016). Multiple branching rupture of the 2009 Tonga‐Samoa earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 121(8), 5809–5827. Freed, A. M., & Lin, J. (2001). Delayed triggering of the 1999 Hector Mine earthquake by viscoelastic stress transfer. Nature, 411(6834), 180–183. Gabriel, Alice-Agnes, Taufiq Taufiqurrahman, Duo Li, Thomas Ulrich, Bo Li, Sara Carena, Alessandro Verdecchia, and František Gallovič. "Conversations between earthquakes: Dynamics and delays of the 2019 Ridgecrest rupture sequence." (2022). Güvercin, S. E., Karabulut, H., Konca, A. Ö., Doğan, U., & Ergintav, S. (2022). Active seismotectonics of the East Anatolian Fault. Geophysical Journal International, 230(1), 50–69. Güvercin, S. E., Konca, A. Ö., Karabulut, H., Eskiköy, F., Hollingsworth, J., and Ergintav, S.: Preliminary Seismic and Geodetic Observations of the Mw7.8 and Mw7.6 Earthquakes in Eastern Turkey, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 24–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-17619, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-17619, 2023. Harris, R. A. (1998). Introduction to Special Section: Stress Triggers, Stress Shadows, and Implications for Seismic Hazard. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103(B10), 24347–24358. Harris, R. A., & Simpson, R. W. (1996). In the shadow of 1857 - The effect of the great Ft Tejon earthquake on subsequent earthquakes in southern California. Geophysical Research Letters, 23(3), 229–232. Hearn, E. H., McClusky, S., Ergintav, S., & Reilinger, R. E. (2009). Izmit earthquake postseismic deformation and dynamics of the North Anatolian Fault Zone. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(B8), B08405. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB006026 Hreinsdóttir, S., Freymueller, J. T., Fletcher, H. J., Larsen, C. F., & Bürgmann, R. (2003). Coseismic slip distribution of the 2002 Mw7. 9 Denali faultearthquake, Alaska, determined from GPS measurements. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(13), 1670. https://doi.org/10.1029/ 2003GL017447 Hikima, K., & Koketsu, K. (2005). Rupture processes of the 2004 Chuetsu (mid-Niigata prefecture) earthquake, Japan: A series of events in a complex fault system: THE 2004 CHUETSU, JAPAN, EARTHQUAKE. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(18), n/a-n/a. King, G. C. P., Stein, R. S., & Jian, L. (1994). Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. Bulletin - Seismological Society of America, 84(3), 935–953. Kirby, E., Harkins, N., Wang, E., Shi, X., Fan, C., & Burbank, D. (2007). Slip rate gradients along the eastern Kunlun fault. Tectonics, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006TC002033 Karabulut, H., Paul, A., Özbakır, A. D., Ergün, T., & Şentürk, S. (2019). A new crustal model of the Anatolia–Aegean domain: evidence for the dominant role of isostasy in the support of the Anatolian plateau. Geophysical Journal International, 218(1), 57-73. Koç, A., & Kaymakcı, N. (2013). Kinematics of Sürgü Fault Zone (Malatya, Turkey): A remote sensing study. Journal of Geodynamics, 65, 292–307. Liu, C., & Shi, Y. (2021). Space-Time Stress Variations on the Palu-Koro Fault Impacting the 2018 Mw 7.5 Palu Earthquake and Its Seismic Hazards. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 22(5), e2020GC009552. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GC009552 Liu, C., Dong, P., & Shi, Y. (2017). Stress change from the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake and increased hazard in the southern Tibetan Plateau. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 267, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2017.04.002 Liu, C., Dong, P., Zhu, B., & Shi, Y. (2018). Stress Shadow on the Southwest Portion of the Longmen Shan Fault Impacted the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake Rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123(11), 9963–9981. Liu, C., Dong, P.Y., Shi, Y.L., 2017. Recurrence interval of the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake inferred from geodynamic modelling stress buildup and release. Journal of Geodynamics, 110:1-11. Liu, C., Zhang, H., Chen, J., & Shi, Y. (2022). Stress Evolution Before and After the 2021 Mw 7.3 Maduo Earthquake in Northeastern Tibet and Its Influence on Seismic Hazards. Earth and Space Science, 9(6), e2022EA002325. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EA002325 Liu, C., Zhu, B., & Shi, Y. (2020). Do the Two Seismic Gaps in the Southwestern Section of the Longmen Shan Fault Present the Same Seismic Hazard? Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 125(3), e2019JB018160. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB018160 Liu, C., Zhu, B., Yang, X., & Shi, Y. (2016a). Geodynamic background of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake based on 3D visco-elastic numerical modelling. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 252, 23–36. Liu, C., Zhu, B.J., Shi, Y.L. (2016b). Lithospheric rheology and Moho upheaval control the generation mechanism of the intraplate earthquakes in the North China Basin. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 121:153-164. Liu, D., Duan, B., Prush, V. B., Oskin, M. E., & Liu-Zeng, J. (2021). Observation-constrained multicycle dynamic models of the Pingding Shan earthquake gate along the Altyn Tagh Fault. Tectonophysics, 814, 228948. Mallman, E. P., & Parsons, T. (2008). A global search for stress shadows. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 113(B12). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005336 Medved, I., Polat, G., & Koulakov, I. (2021). Crustal Structure of the Eastern Anatolia Region (Turkey) Based on Seismic Tomography. Geosciences, 11(2), 91.https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020091 Meghraoui, M., Gomez, F., Sbeinati, R., Van Der Woerd, J., Mouty, M., Darkal, A. N., et al. (2003). Evidence for 830 years of seismic quiescence from palaeoseismology, archaeoseismology and historical seismicity along the Dead Sea fault in Syria. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 210(1–2), 35–52. Melgar, D., Taymaz, T., Ganas, A., Crowell, B., Öcalan, T., Kahraman, M., Tsironi, V., Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., Valkaniotis, S., Irmak, T. S., Eken, T., Erman, C., Özkan, B., Dogan, A. H., & Altuntaş, C. (2023). Sub- and super-shear ruptures during the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquake doublet in SE Türkiye. Seismica, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.387 Muehlberger, W. R., & Gordon, M. B. (1987). Observations on the complexity of the east anatolian fault, turkey. Journal of Structural Geology, 9(7), 899–903. Nalbant, S. S., McCloskey, J., Steacy, S., & Barka, A. A. (2002). Stress accumulation and increased seismic risk in eastern Turkey. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 195(3–4), 291–298. Nissen, E., Elliott, J. R., Sloan, R. A., Craig, T. J., Funning, G. J., Hutko, A., et al. (2016). Limitations of rupture forecasting exposed by instantaneously triggered earthquake doublet. Nature Geoscience, 9(4), 330–336. Ogden, C. S., & Bastow, I. D. (2022). The crustal structure of the Anatolian Plate from receiver functions and implications for the uplift of the central and eastern Anatolian plateaus. Geophysical Journal International, 229(2), 1041–1062. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggab513 Okuwaki, R., Yuji, Y., Taymaz, T., & Hicks, S. (2023). Multi-scale rupture growth with alternating directions in a complex fault network during the 2023 south-eastern Türkiye and Syria earthquake doublet (preprint). https://doi.org/10.31223/X5RD4W Ozacar, A. A., Zandt, G., Gilbert, H., & Beck, S. L. Seismic images of crustal variations beneath the East Anatolian Plateau (Turkey) from teleseismic receiver functions. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 2010, 340(1), 485-496. P. Martin Mai, Theodoros Aspiotis, Tariq Anwar Aquib, Eduardo Valero Cano, David CastroCruz, Armando Espindola-Carmona, Bo Li, Xing Li, Jihong Liu, Rémi Matrau1, Adriano Nobile, Kadek Hendrawan Palgunadi, Matthieu Ribot, Laura Parisi, Cahli Suhendi1, Yuxiang Tang, Bora Yalcin, Ulaş Avşar, Yann Klinger, and Sigurjón Jónsson. The destructive earthquake doublet of February 6, 2023, in south-central Türkiye and northwestern Syria: initial observations and analyses. The Seismic Record, 2023, Accepted. Payne, R. M., & Duan, B. (2015). Influence of initial stress and rupture initiation parameters on forbidden zone rupture propagation. Geophysical Journal International, 201(1), 70-77. Ramos, M. D., Neo, J. C., Thakur, P., Huang, Y., & Wei, S. (2020). Stress changes on the Garlock fault during and after the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 110(4), 1752-1764. Reasenberg, P. A., & Simpson, R. W. (1992). Response of Regional Seismicity to the Static Stress Change Produced by the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Science, 255(5052), 1687–1690. Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Cakmak, R., et al. (2006). GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions: EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ACTIVE TECTONICS. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B5), https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004051 Shi Yao-Lin & Cao Jian-Ling. Some aspects in static stress change calculation - case study on Wenchuan earthquake. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 2010, 53(1): 102-110, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0001-5733.2010.01.011. Simpson, R. W., Schulz, S. S., Dietz, L. D., & Burford, R. O. (1988). The response of creeping parts of the San Andreas fault to earthquakes on nearby faults: Two examples. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 126(2), 665–685. Stein, R. S. (1999). The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. Nature, 402(6762), 605–609. Sunbul, F. (2019). Time-dependent stress increase along the major faults in eastern Turkey. Journal of Geodynamics, 126, 23–31. Tesauro, M., Kaban, M. K., Petrunin, A. G., El Khrepy, S., & Al-Arifi, N. (2018). Strength and elastic thickness variations in the Arabian Plate: A combination of temperature, composition and strain rates of the lithosphere. Tectonophysics, 746, 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.03.004 Ulrich, T., Gabriel, A.-A., Ampuero, J.-P., & Xu, W. (2019). Dynamic viability of the 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake cascade on weak crustal faults. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1213. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09125-w Vanacore E A, Taymaz T, Saygin E. Moho structure of the Anatolian Plate from receiver function analysis. Geophysical Journal International, 2013, 193(1): 329-337. USGS 2023a (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/finite- fault , version 4, updated on Feb. 21th 2023) USGS 2023b (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/finite- fault, version 3, updated on Feb. 17th 2023) Van der Woerd, J., Ryerson, F. J., Tapponnier, P., Gaudemer, Y., Finkel, R., Meriaux, A. S., et al. (1998). Holocene left-slip rate determined by cosmogenic surface dating on the Xidatan segment of the Kunlun fault (Qinghai, China). Geology, 26(8), 695–698. Van der Woerd, J., Ryerson, F. J., Tapponnier, P., Meriaux, A.-S., Gaudemer, Y., Meyer, B., et al. (2000). Uniform slip-rate along the Kunlun Fault: Implications for seismic behaviour and large-scale tectonics. Geophysical Research Letters, 27(16), 2353–2356. Vanacore, E. A., Taymaz, T., & Saygin, E. (2013). Moho structure of the Anatolian Plate from receiver function analysis. Geophysical Journal International, 193(1), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggs107 Wang, R. J., Lorenzo-Martín, F., & Roth, F. (2006). PSGRN/PSCMP—A new code for calculating co-and post-seismic deformation, geoid and gravity changes based on the viscoelastic-gravitational dislocation theory. Computers & Geosciences, 32(4), 527–541. Wang, R. J., Martı́n, F. L., & Roth, F. (2003). Computation of deformation induced by earthquakes in a multi-layered elastic crust—FORTRAN programs EDGRN/EDCMP. Computers & Geosciences, 29(2), 195–207. Wen, Y. Y., Oglesby, D. D., Duan, B., & Ma, K. F. (2012). Dynamic rupture simulation of the 2008 M W 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake with heterogeneous initial stress. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(4), 1892-1898. Yue, H., Lay, T., & Koper, K. D. (2012). En échelon and orthogonal fault ruptures of the 11 April 2012 great intraplate earthquakes. Nature, 490(7419), 245–249. Zahradník, J., Turhan, F., Sokos, E., & Gallovič, F. (2023). Asperity-like (segmented) structure of the 6 February 2023 Turkish earthquakes (preprint). Geophysics and Seismology. https://doi.org/10.31223/X5T666 Zhu, H. (2018). High Vp/Vs ratio in the crust and uppermost mantle beneathvolcanoes in the Central and Eastern Anatolia. Geophysical Journal International, 214(3), 2151-2163. Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files SupportinginformationDecodingstresspatternsofthe2023TurkeySyriaearthquakedoublet.doc Supporting Information Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-2922091","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":199743699,"identity":"73443e24-db02-4c67-9c79-e7d47cfca0a3","order_by":0,"name":"Jianquan Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State Key Laboratory of Marine Geology, Tongji University, Shanghai, China","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jianquan","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""},{"id":199743700,"identity":"0dbd3a7c-c6ec-4ee6-9d81-096e338b2583","order_by":1,"name":"Luca Dal Zilio","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"ETH Zurich","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Luca","middleName":"Dal","lastName":"Zilio","suffix":""},{"id":199743701,"identity":"205a6e8c-c2a6-4cb2-96f7-728ec86df542","order_by":2,"name":"Hang Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State Key Laboratory of Marine Geology, Tongji University, Shanghai, China","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hang","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":199743702,"identity":"97b141e1-1b0c-4968-842d-25ba80558a5a","order_by":3,"name":"Guangliang Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Wuhan, China","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Guangliang","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""},{"id":199743703,"identity":"5e17f663-27cb-413e-a08a-2dced4a3d53d","order_by":4,"name":"Yaolin Shi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Key Laboratory of Computational Geodynamics, Chinese Academy of Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yaolin","middleName":"","lastName":"Shi","suffix":""},{"id":199743704,"identity":"b20e7100-5819-4017-a646-bb8239850c3b","order_by":5,"name":"Chang Liu","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3715-0750","institution":"Tongji University","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chang","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-05-11 19:32:40","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2922091/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2922091/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":37197745,"identity":"3733c407-b46d-4c1d-85eb-56a6ef08aaab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-05-18 13:57:29","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":778508,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeological settings of the Eastern Mediterranean area and the spatiotemporal distribution of large historical earthquakes (M ≥ 6.0) from 32 to 2023.\u003c/strong\u003e(a) shows the epicenters of earthquakes with blue and orange dots from 32 to 1822 and from 1822 to 2023, respectively. The black stars represent the epicenters of 19 earthquakes (M ≥ 6.1) (Nos. 1 - 11 and 14-21) that occurred on and around the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) and North Anatolian Fault (NAF) from 1822 to 2022, and their focal mechanisms are shown as black beach balls. The red stars indicate the epicenters of the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquakes (Nos. 12 and 13), and their focal mechanisms are represented by red beach balls. The active faults are delineated by black lines, with the EAF, NAF, Cardak fault (CF), and Dead Sea Fault (DSF) labeled by bold black lines. The plate boundaries are delineated by bold grey dashed lines. (b) shows the epicenters of earthquakes (M ≥ 6.0) from 1822 to 2023. The ruptures of the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquakes and 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake are illustrated as bold red, blue, and yellow dashed lines, respectively. The light blue dashed line rectangles denote seismic gaps A and B in the EAF and DSF, respectively. The earthquake parameters are provided in Table S1 in the Supporting Information.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2922091/v1/8d524baae13c2424df27cd65.png"},{"id":37197435,"identity":"8d732fd1-f4c1-4ca4-9f70-92b464794e11","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-05-18 13:49:29","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":219041,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eΔCFS distribution along the S1-S3 ruptures of the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake in the EAF at a 10-km depth before their respective ruptures caused by historical earthquakes between 1822 and 2023.\u003c/strong\u003eThe focal mechanisms of the S1-S3 used in the simulation are (strike = 28°, dip = 85°, rake = -1°), (strike = 60°, dip = 85°, rake = -1°), and (strike = 25°, dip = 85°, rake = -1°), respectively (USGS, 2023a). (a) ΔCFS distribution along the S1 rupture before its rupture caused by 19 historical earthquakes historical earthquakes (Nos. 1-11, 14-21) between 1822 and 2023. (b), (d), (f), and (h) show ΔCFS distribution along the S2 rupture before its rupture caused by 18 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1-10, 14-21) between 1822 and 2019, the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake (No. 11), the S1 of the 2023 Mw7.8 earthquake (No. 12(S1)), and all 20 earthquakes between 1822 and 2023 (Nos. 1-11, 12(S1), 14-21). (c), (e), (g), and (i) show ΔCFS distribution along the S3 rupture before its rupture caused by the same earthquakes as those in figures (b), (d), (f), and (h).(j) Segments (AB, DE, and CD) indicating the faults that ruptured during the three sub-events (S1, S2, and S3, respectively) of the 2023 Mw7.8 earthquake. The blue ellipse indicates the stress shadow zone caused by the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake, while the black, red, and blue stars denote the epicenters of the 2023 Mw 7.8, 2023 Mw7.6, and 2020 Mw 6.7 earthquakes, respectively. Amanos, Erkenek, and Pazarcik segments are abbreviated as AS, ES, and PS, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2922091/v1/1c13cd80e7ce0863d7d97898.png"},{"id":37197744,"identity":"24873fcf-34e5-4aa7-bfce-8fb5d4aff090","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-05-18 13:57:29","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":248150,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eΔCFS distribution along the S4-S6 ruptures of the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake in the CF at a 10-km depth before their respective ruptures caused by historical earthquakes between 1822 and 2023.\u003c/strong\u003eThe focal mechanisms of the S4-S6 used in the simulation are (strike = 276°, dip = 80°, rake = -1°), (strike = 250°, dip = 80°, rake = -1°), and (strike = 60°, dip = 80°, rake = -1°), respectively (USGS, 2023b). (a), (d), and (i) show ΔCFS distribution along the S4 rupture before its rupture caused by 19 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1-11, 14-21) between 1822 and 2022, the 2023 Mw7.8 earthquake (No. 12), and all 20 earthquakes between 1822 and 2023 (Nos. 1-12, 14-21).(b), (e), (g), and (j) show ΔCFS distribution along the S5 rupture before its rupture caused by 19 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1-11, 14-21) between 1822 and 2022, the 2023 Mw7.8 earthquake (No. 12), the S4 of the Mw7.6 earthquake (No. 13(S4)), and all 21 earthquakes between 1822 and 2023 (Nos. 1-12, 13(S4), 14-21).(c), (f), (h), and (k) show ΔCFS distribution along the S6 rupture before its rupture caused by the same earthquakes as those in figures (b), (e), (g), and (j).(l) Segments (GH, GF, and HI) indicating the faults that ruptured during the S4, S5, and S6, respectively, of the 2023 Mw7.6 earthquake. The black and red stars denote the epicenters of the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw7.6 earthquakes, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2922091/v1/a9b8e42c35c48cef7b35a9b4.png"},{"id":37197440,"identity":"405b4d1f-3afb-4bb4-9a53-4bbcbcb6b043","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-05-18 13:49:29","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":172557,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eΔCFS distribution along the seismic gap in the EAF at a 10-km depth after 2023.\u003c/strong\u003eThe focal mechanism used in the simulation is (strike = 60°, dip = 85°, rake = -1°). ΔCFS was caused by (a) 18 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1-10, 14-21) between 1822 and 2019, (b) the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake (No. 11), (c) the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No. 12), (d) the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake (No. 13), and (e) all the 21 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1-21) between 1822 and 2023. (f) The location of the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap in the EAF. The black dots show cites (Palu, Ilica, and Varto) with names.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2922091/v1/71eebb76fae26aed4edead44.png"},{"id":37197441,"identity":"f3fe80d1-8bb0-4f80-95d1-d79d121cec5f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-05-18 13:49:29","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":293140,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eΔCFS distribution along different segments of the seismic gap in the northern portion of the DSF at a 10-km depth after 2023.\u003c/strong\u003e The focal mechanisms of segments AB, CD, and EF used in simulation are (strike = 190°, dip = 75°, rake = 25°), (strike = 210°, dip = 70°, rake = -40°), and (strike = 180°, dip = 85°, rake = 15°), respectively. ΔCFS was caused by (a) 4 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 7) between 1822 and 2022, (b) the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No. 12), (c) the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake (No. 13), and (d) all the six historical earthquakes (Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 13) between 1822 and 2023. (e) The locations of the different segments AB, CD, and EF in the northern section of the DSF.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2922091/v1/2a0239c47ef1f6571220fb12.png"},{"id":37197437,"identity":"96a7871b-b273-4cff-994d-ad712aebafe0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-05-18 13:49:29","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":178400,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSchematic illustration of seismic activity in the EAF region.\u003c/strong\u003e (a)The stress changes on the S1-S6 ruptures prior to their respective ruptures during the 2023 earthquake doublet. The segments on the EAF, including Amanos, Pazarcik, and Erkenek, are abbreviated as AS, PS, and ES, respectively. The red and blue rectangles represent areas of stress increase and decrease, respectively, with the maximum and minimum values of ΔCFS indicated beside the rectangles. (b) The rupture zones of historical earthquakes (Ambraseys, 1989; Ambraseys\u0026amp; Jackson, 1998; Tan et al., 2008; Duman and Emre, 2013; Nulbant et al., 2002; Sunbul, 2019) are shown as blue dashed line rectangles, while the red dashed line ellipse marks the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap in the EAF. The black stars indicate the epicenters of the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw7.6 earthquakes.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2922091/v1/0a649cede97cfbdfbb438efd.png"},{"id":37197747,"identity":"2b0d1669-7c45-48e9-aefc-c6ebfc0e9e70","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-05-18 13:57:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2226861,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2922091/v1/a824ebf8-d08a-45c8-9bca-d82e2d7066ab.pdf"},{"id":37197439,"identity":"f4af0382-2c20-4542-ae9e-a67aed4d798d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-05-18 13:49:29","extension":"doc","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2290176,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Supporting Information","description":"","filename":"SupportinginformationDecodingstresspatternsofthe2023TurkeySyriaearthquakedoublet.doc","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2922091/v1/2632b8d6d1c98b193be48664.doc"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"Decoding stress patterns of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake doublet","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOn February 6th, 2023, a devastating earthquake doublet (Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6) shook southeastern Turkey and northern Syria (USGS 2023a, b), causing widespread damage, homelessness, and over fifty thousand fatalities (Dal Zilio and Ampuero, 2023). The first quake (Mw 7.8) struck along the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) at 37.225°N 37.021°E, while the second (Mw 7.6) occurred on the Cardak Fault (CF) at 38.024°N 37.203°E, a splay fault linked to the EAF's Erkenek segment (Duman and Erme, 2013) (Fig. 1). Both shallow-depth main shocks (10km-14.5km) generated intense ground motion, leading to catastrophic regional impacts (USGS 2023a, b; Melgar et al., 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023; Mai et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have inversed kinematic fault slip models of the Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquakes using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and seismic data (Barbot et al., 2023; USGS 2023a, b; Melgar et al., 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023; Zahradník et al., 2023; Mai et al., 2023). These studies suggest that each main shock involved three sub-events, rupturing three segments in the 2023 earthquake doublet (USGS 2023a, b; Melgar et al. 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023; Mai et al., 2023). The rare occurrence of such large magnitude earthquake doublets with multiple sub-events within nine hours warrants investigation into their interactions. Understanding how stress changes induced by preceding sub-events influence the occurrence and behavior of subsequent sub-events can provide insights into the rupture process's spatiotemporal evolution. However, limited research has explored the interactions between cascading sub-events in earthquake sequences or doublets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSunbul (2019) previously identified that the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake's Pazarcik segment was stress-loaded by historical earthquakes before 2019. Notably, the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake, which occurred near the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake rupture's northeastern end (Güvercin et al., 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023), was absent from Sunbul's (2019) stress calculations (Fig. 1). This raises questions about the Elazig earthquake's potential impact on the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake rupture process. Considering the Elazig earthquake's magnitude, proximity to the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake rupture, and exclusion from previous stress calculations, it's crucial to evaluate its stress change contribution along the EAF. Furthermore, the stress change on the CF caused by pre-2023 historical earthquakes and its influence on the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake remain unclear.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Eastern Anatolian Fault (EAF), a critical tectonic boundary separating the Arabian and Anatolian plates, spans approximately 580 km from its intersection with the North Anatolian Fault (NAF) in the northeast to its connection with the Dead Sea Fault (DSF) in the southwest (Muehlberger and Gordon, 1987; Reilinger et al., 2006; Sunbul, 2019). Two seismic gaps, the Kahramanmaras-Malatya and Elazig-Bingol gaps, have been identified on the EAF based on seismic data from 1822 to 2019 (Nalbant et al., 2002; Sunbul, 2019; Güvercin et al., 2022). The 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake filled the Kahramanmaras-Malatya gap (USGS 2023a; Melgar et al., 2023; Okuwaki et al., 2023; Mai et al., 2023) (Fig. 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumerous large earthquakes (M\u0026nbsp;≥\u0026nbsp;6.1) have occurred within and near the EAF over the past two centuries, as evidenced by the historical earthquake catalogue. A key question arises: how do stress perturbations resulting from these earthquakes influence seismic activity and hazards along the EAF? Another essential question is how the stress changes induced by past earthquakes affected the initiation, propagation, and termination of the 2023 earthquake doublet.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere, we address these questions using simulations of the Coulomb Failure Stress(ΔCFS) induced by 21 historical earthquakes (M≥\u0026nbsp;6.1), including the 2023 doublet, based on existing focal mechanisms in and around the EAF from 1822 to 2023. Our goal was to evaluate spatiotemporal stress variations along the EAF, elucidate the interactions between the six cascading sub-events of the 2023 doublet, and assess future seismic hazards in the region. Our research provides insights into earthquake rupture initiation, propagation, and termination within the EAF and other large-scale strike-slip fault zones. Moreover, our findings can inform disaster prevention and relief strategies in southeastern Turkey, northern Syria, and Lebanon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe computed ΔCFS values before, during, and after the 2023 doublet, caused by 21 historical earthquakes in and around the EAF from 1822 to 2023. We calculated the ΔCFS values at a 10-km depth, near the hypocenter depth recommended by USGS (USGS, 2023a, b), considering both co-seismic stress changes and post-seismic stress relaxation. Our findings show that the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake was delayed by 52 years due to stress shadow effects from historical events, while the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake was accelerated by 26 years as a result of stress increases from historical events and ultimately triggered by the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake. These results highlight the need for increased monitoring and preparedness in the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap of the EAF and the northern section of the Dead Sea Fault.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe delayed Mw 7.8 earthquake\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe initiation point of the Mw 7.8 earthquake's first sub-event (S1) (segment AB in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ej) was not on the main strand of the EAF but on a splay fault (USGS \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e; Melgar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Okuwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zahradn\u0026iacute;k et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Our results showed a release of stress over the entire S1 rupture, with a minimum ΔCFS of -584 kPa prior to the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake, due to 19 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1\u0026ndash;11, 14\u0026ndash;21) between 1822 and 2022 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea). A decrease of -154 kPa in ΔCFS was observed at the hypocenter (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea). Stress shadow effects inhibiting earthquake activity have been observed in previous studies, such as those on the San Andreas Fault system, eastern Tibet, and Southern Tibet.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe suggest that the unloaded stress on the earthquake hypocenter, resulting from historical earthquake interactions in the EAF over the past two centuries, delayed the S1 rupture of the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake. Based on the interseismic tectonic loading Coulomb stressing rate of 3 kPa/a (Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), the ΔCFS of 154 kPa was equivalent to tectonic loading for approximately 52 years. Consequently, we deduced that the stress shadow on the S1 rupture zone, caused by earthquake interactions in the EAF between 1822 and 2023, delayed the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake by 52 years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDeciphering the Mw 7.8 earthquake rupture propagation and termination\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur results show that stress in the Pazarcik segment (PS in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e(b)) of the second sub-event (S2) rupture is increased with the maximum ΔCFS value of 593 kPa at the very southwestern end prior to its rupture caused by 18 earthquakes (Nos. 1\u0026ndash;10, 14\u0026ndash;21) between 1822 and 2019 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb). This result is consistent with previous findings of loaded stress on the Pazarcik segment by historical earthquakes before 2019 (Nalbant et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, we assess the stress change on the S2 rupture caused by the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake (No. 11) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ed) and the S1 of the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No. 12 (S1)) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ef), which were not included in previous stress calculations (Nalbant et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Our analysis shows that the already stressed Pazarcik segment on the S2 rupture is further stress-promoted, reaching a maximum stress value of approximately 471 kPa at its southwestern end prior to its rupture, caused by the S1 event (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ef). Based on the interseismic tectonic loading Coulomb stressing rate of 3 kPa/a (Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), the ΔCFS of 471 kPa is equivalent to tectonic loading for approximately 157 years, signaling strong physical connection between the S1 and S2. Therefore, we suggest that the S1 triggers the S2, resulting in its northeastward rupture propagation along the Pazarcik segment of the EAF.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, a stress shadow is observed with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5461 kPa to the northeastern end of the S2 rupture (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eh), which is mainly contributed by the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ed). This stress shadow, due to its relatively low stress level, may potentially halt the northeastern rupture of the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake, in line with the stress shadow theory as reported by previous studies (Simpson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Harris and Simpson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Freed and Lin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Mallman and Parsons, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Liu and Shi; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The phenomenon of stress shadow and its effect on earthquake rupture termination is not exclusive to the EAF, as similar observations have been made in other locations. For instance, stress shadow effects were observed on the Logmen Shan fault in eastern Tibet during the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, as well as on the Palu-Koro fault in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, during the 2018 Mw 7.5 Palu earthquake (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Liu and Shi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These findings provide insights that could potentially enhance our understanding of the reasons for earthquake rupture propagation and termination on a global scale, including observations of unilaterally eastward rupture in the 2002 Mw 7.9 Denali fault earthquake, as reported by Eberhart-Phillips et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) and Hreinsd\u0026oacute;ttir et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe triggered Mw 7.6 earthquake — aseismic chain reaction\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur research demonstrates that stress is elevated almost over the entire fourth sub-event (S4) rupture (segment GH in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003el) before its rupture by historical earthquakes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ei). We find that the increased ΔCFS value of 78 kPa and 252 kPa is caused by 19 earthquakes (Nos. 1\u0026ndash;11, 14\u0026ndash;21) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ea) between 1822 and 2022 and the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No. 12) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ed), respectively. Given the interseismic tectonic loading Coulomb stressing rate of 3 kPa/a (Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), the ΔCFS of 78 kPa and 225 kPa corresponds to tectonic loading for approximately 26 and 75 years, respectively. Thus, we suggest that the historical earthquake activities between 1822 and 2022 bring the CF close to failure, with a loaded stress on the S4 rupture equivalent to approximately 26 years of tectonic loading. The 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake adds further stress to the S4 rupture, ultimately triggering the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake by advancing it for approximately 75 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInterplay between sub-events by stress triggering and shadow\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe find that the fifth sub-event (S5) rupture segment (GF in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003el) is largely brought away from failure due to stress unloading, with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;197 at its northeastern end prior to the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake caused by 19 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1\u0026ndash;10, 14\u0026ndash;21) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eb) and the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No. 12) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ee). However, it is brought back to failure by the S4 of the Mw 7.6 earthquake (No. 13 (S4)) due to stress loading over the entire S5 rupture, with the highest ΔCFS value of approximately 1647 kPa at its northeastern end (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eg). We believe that ΔCFS with this high value is large enough to trigger the S5, since it is much higher than the threshold (10 kPa) for triggering earthquakes (Reasenberg\u0026amp; Simpson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe S6 rupture (HI in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003el) is also stress unloaded, with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2502 kPa at its southwestern end, due to the same 20 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1\u0026ndash;12, 14\u0026ndash;21) (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ec and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ef). Although the S4 increases stress over the entire S6 rupture, with the highest ΔCFS value of 1279 kPa at its southwestern end (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eh), this positive stress is not sufficient to compensate for the negative stress caused by the 20 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1\u0026ndash;12, 14\u0026ndash;21) and bring the S6 rupture segment back to failure. Finally, the entire S6 rupture is located in the stress shadow, with the minimum ΔCFS value of approximately \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1457 kPa observed at its southwestern end before its rupture (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ek). Similarly, we find that the Amanos segment (CD in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ej) of the S3 rupture is also located in the stress shadow, with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5574 kPa, before its rupture due to unloaded stress by historical earthquakes between 1822 and 2023 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ei).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese results indicate that the intricate interplay among the six sub-events through stress triggering and shadow effects during the 2023 earthquake doublet is a complex phenomenon. Notably, the preceding sub-event not only serves to promote the subsequent sub-events but also demonstrates a propensity to delay such events. This observation aligns with prior proposals which suggest that a static stress change occurring along a fault can give rise to the promotion or delay of an induced instability on the secondary fault (Belardinelli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Based on our observations of positive stress transfer between the S1 and S2, S4 and S5, and S4 and S6, with the maximum ΔCFS values of 1064 kPa, 1647 kPa, and 1279 kPa, respectively, we propose that static stress changes induced by preceding sub-events play a significant role in promoting rupture propagation of subsequent sub-events and its migration between multiple segments during the 2023 earthquake doublet.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to point out that the factors that control the initiation of those sub-events located in the stress shadow, such as S1, the Erkenek segment of S2 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eh), S3, and S6, remain unclear. Note that fault rupture initiation and propagation are significantly influenced by the stress on the fault prior to its ultimate rupture (Duan and Oglesby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Duan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Wen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Payne and Duan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The stress evolution before and during an earthquake sequence or doublet, rupturing several segments in a complex fault system, is complex. The stress level on the first sub-event is mainly controlled by inter-seismic tectonic stress accumulation (Duan and Oglesby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016b\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and static stress change induced by previous historical earthquakes on and nearby the target fault (Reasenberg and Simpson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Stein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, stress on subsequent sub-events requires extra consideration of both static and dynamic stress changes induced by preceding sub-events during the earthquake sequence or doublet (Antonioli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Belardinelli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Belardinelli and Bizzarri, 2003; Gabriel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results provide a unified interpretation on the static stress change on each sub-event induced by 19 historical earthquakes before the 2023 earthquake doublet. Strong earthquake-induced static stress variation along the segments of the six sub-events was observed prior to their corresponding ruptures (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). To gain a better understanding of the reasons behind the rupture initiation of those sub-events such as S1, S3, and S6, future research should prioritize investigating the accumulation of inter-seismic tectonic loading stress on the seismogenic depth of the EAF and CF and the dynamic stress induced by preceding sub-events during the 2023 earthquake doublet.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, in this study demonstrates that earthquake trigger and delayed occur across various time scales ranging from seconds to hours and years. We reveal how the static stress changes induced by preceding sub-events can influence the occurrence and behavior of subsequent sub-events, and consequently on how the rupture process evolves over time and space with the example of the 2023 earthquake doublet. This is important for us to understand the role of earthquake-induced static stress change on earthquake dynamics at different stages of an earthquake cycle, including earthquake preparation, rupture initiation, propagation, and termination on multiple fault segments in structurally complex fault systems worldwide, such as the Mw 7.1 earthquake in Pakistan (Nissen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake in Niigata, Japan (Hikima, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), the 2009 Mw 8.1 Tonga-Samoa earthquake in the Tonga subduction zone (Fan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), the 2012 great Mw 8.7 intraplate earthquake and the great Mw 8.2 aftershock in southwest of the Sumatra subduction zone (Yue et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake in the Eastern California Shear Zone (Ramos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Gabriel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and the 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake in the Marlborough fault system in southern New Zealand (Ulrich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRaised hazards and seismic gaps\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on previous studies that provide paleoearthquake data and fault slip models (Ambraseys, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Ambraseys\u0026amp; Jackson, 1998; Tan et al., 2011; Duman and Emre, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; USGS \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e; Melgar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Okuwaki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), a seismic gap with a length of approximately 70 km still exists on the northeastern EAF, known as the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eb). This gap has been subjected to loading stress by 18 historical earthquakes (Nos. 1\u0026ndash;10, 14\u0026ndash;21) between 1822 and 2019 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ea), the 2020 Mw 6.7 Elazig earthquake (No. 11) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eb), the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake (No.12) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ec), and the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake(No. 13) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ed), with maximum ΔCFS values of 1541 kPa, 3 kPa, 7 kPa, and 4 kPa, respectively. The interseismic tectonic loading Coulomb stressing rate of 3 kPa/a (Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) indicates that the maximum accumulated ΔCFS of 1547 kPa in the seismic gap after 2023 corresponds to tectonic loading for approximately 516 years (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ee). As this seismic gap has not experienced a large earthquake for several hundred years (Nalbant et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), the accumulated stress in this gap raises concerns about future hazards. If the entire segment (70 km long) ruptures, a future earthquake with a magnitude greater than 7.2 may occur, releasing accumulated energy at a fault slip rate of approximately 10 mm/a over the past century (Ko\u0026ccedil; and Kaymakc, 2013; Bayrak et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Aktug et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e;). Therefore, it is crucial to pay more attention to the regions between Palu and Ilica city in the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap of the EAF.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe northern section of DSF contains another seismic gap, referred to as zone B in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, that has not experienced a large earthquake in more than 830 years, despite having been struck by more than three large earthquakes (M\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;7.0) between 859 AD and 1408 AD (Meghraoui et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Dal Zilio and Ampuero, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This gap is located in an area densely populated with communities in southeastern Turkey, northern Syria, and Lebanon. Our results revealed that although stress was decreased over half of segment AB with a minimum ΔCFS value of approximately \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;504 kPa, it was increased over most of segments CD and EF with a maximum ΔCFS value of approximately 312 kPa (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ed). This stress increment was mainly caused by two historical earthquakes (Nos. 1 and 3) that occurred on the Amanos segment of the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ea). The 2023 earthquake doublet also contributed to stress increment on segments CD and EF, with a maximum ΔCFS value of approximately 10 kPa (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eb,c). Therefore, the increased seismic hazards due to the promoted stress in the seismic gap of the northern portion of the DAF should be given special attention.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eAccording to the Coulomb failure criterion (Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e), the definition of ΔCFS is as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔCFS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Δτ\u003csub\u003es\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;\u0026micro;' Δσ\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e (1),\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the equation, Δτ\u003csub\u003es\u003c/sub\u003e and Δσ\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e indicate the variations in the shear stress and the normal stress, respectively. \u0026micro;' is the coefficient of equivalent friction, ranging between 0.2 and 0.8.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe lithospheric model parameters were obtained from earlier seismic imaging studies(Ogden \u0026amp; Bastow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ozacar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Vanacore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Medved et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kounoudiset al., 2018; Tesauro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Portner et al., 2018; Zhu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and estimates of effective viscosity (Hearn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Sunbul et al., 2016; Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). A summary of the parameters of the layers in the lithospheric model can be found in Table S2 in Supporting Information. The upper and lower crusts had viscosities of 1.0 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003ePa.s and 1.0 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003ePa.s, respectively (Hearn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Sunbul et al., 2016; Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the mantle's viscosity was estimated to be 5.0 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003ePa.s (Hearn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Sunbul et al., 2016; Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the equivalent friction coefficient \u0026micro;' was determined to be 0.4, as reported by King et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e), providing a crucial metric for evaluating the model's predictive accuracy and reliability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssuming viscoelastic rheology in the lithosphere of the eastern Anatolia Plate, we used the PSGRN/PSCMP code (Wang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) to calculate the earthquake stress caused by the dislocation sources in the layered gravitational lithospheric model. As an input of PSCMP, an earthquake is represented by a number of rectangular fault planes with different locations and orientations (strike, dip and rake). The details of the dislocation source models of the 21 historical earthquakes used in this study are summarized in Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e of the Supporting Information. The output of PSCMP includes the complete deformation field consisting of 3 displacement components and 6 stress (strain) components in the model at each time step. The normal and shear stress on a target fault plane with known orientations (strike, dip and rake) can be converted using the calculated stress components (Shi and Cao, 2010). Consequently, the ΔCFS on a target fault can be obtained using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(1). More details about the ΔCFS calculation and PSGRN/PSCMP code, please refer to the previous publications by Wang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) and Shi and Cao (2010).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot that the epicenter, fault rupture trace, co-seismic dislocation, and magnitude of the historical earthquakes in EAF are not well determined because of the lack of good constraints. In this study we used rectangular planar patches with uniform fault slips and fixed source locations in the simulations of 18 historical earthquakes based on the empirical scaling laws and relationships defined by Wells and Coppersmith (1994). All these earthquake source parameters have been successfully used in investigating the earthquake-induced stress change or crustal deformation in the EAF in previous studies (Nalbant et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Sunbul et al., 2016; Sunbul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Although varying source location and slip does not change the general earthquake-induced stress pattern, it may have impact on the stress value on the target faults to some extent (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Liu and Shi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, 2022). Future research should be carried out to explore the influence of uncertainty of the historical earthquake parameters on the stress results.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eChang Liu was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41974102). Guangliang Yang was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 42174104, U1939204) and Hubei provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (2022CFB350). Luca Dal Zilio was supported by the EU project “A Digital Twin for Geophysical Extremes” (DT-GEO) (No: 101058129) and the European Research Council (ERC) Synergy Grant “Fault Activation and Earthquake Rupture” (FEAR) (No 856559). Yaolin Shi was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. U1839207). We are grateful for Martin Mai for his suggestions. We would like to thank ÖmerBudor, Tianhaozhe Sun, Oğuz H. Göğüş, and Ebru ŞengülUluocak for helpful discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe earthquake data used in this study is available at:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ehttps://zenodo.org/record/7875928#.ZEzmHXZBxPY\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAktug, B., Ozener, H., Dogru, A., Sabuncu, A., Turgut, B., Halicioglu, K., et al. (2016). Slip rates and seismic potential on the East Anatolian Fault System using an improved GPS velocity field. Journal of Geodynamics, 94\u0026ndash;95, 1\u0026ndash;12. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmbraseys \u0026amp; Jackson. (1998). Faulting associated with historical and recent earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Geophysical Journal International, 133(2), 390\u0026ndash;406. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmbraseys, N. N. (1989). Temporary seismic quiescence: SE Turkey. Geophysical Journal International, 96(2), 311\u0026ndash;331. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAntonioli, A., Cocco, M., Das, S., \u0026amp; Henry, C. (2002). Dynamic stress triggering during the great 25 March 1998 Antarctic Plate earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(3), 896-903.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayrak, E., Yılmaz, Ş., Softa, M., T\u0026uuml;rker, T., \u0026amp; Bayrak, Y. (2015). Earthquake hazard analysis for East Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey. Natural Hazards, 76(2), 1063\u0026ndash;1077. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbot, S., Luo, H., Wang, T., Hamiel, Y., Piatibratova, O., Javed, M.T., Braitenberg, C. and Gurbuz, G., 2023. Slip distribution of the February 6, 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey earthquake sequence in the East Anatolian Fault Zone. Seismica, 2(3).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelardinelli, M. E., Cocco, M., Coutant, O., \u0026amp; Cotton, F. (1999). Redistribution of dynamic stress during coseismic ruptures: Evidence for fault interaction and earthquake triggering. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 104(B7), 14925-14945.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelardinelli, M. E., Bizzarri, A., \u0026amp; Cocco, M. (2003). Earthquake triggering by static and dynamic stress changes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 108(B3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB001779\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen J.Q., Liu, C., Zhang, H., Shi, Y.L., 2022. Seismic activities and hazards of the seismic gaps in the Haiyuan fault in northeastern Tibet: Insights from numerical modelling earthquake interaction. Earth and Space Science, 9(11): 1-14. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDal Zilio, L., \u0026amp; Ampuero, J.-P. (2023). Earthquake doublet in Turkey and Syria. Communications Earth \u0026amp; Environment, 4(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00747-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDer Woerd, J. V., Tapponnier, P., J. Ryerson, F., Meriaux, A.-S., Meyer, B., Gaudemer, Y., et al. (2002). Uniform postglacial slip-rate along the central 600 km of the Kunlun Fault (Tibet), from 26Al, 10Be, and 14C dating of riser offsets, and climatic origin of the regional morphology. Geophysical Journal International, 148(3), 356\u0026ndash;388. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuan, B. (2010). Role of initial stress rotations in rupture dynamics and ground motion: A case study with implications for the Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 115(B5).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuan, B., Oglesby, D.D., 2005. Multicycle dynamics of nonplanar strike-slip faults. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1978\u0026ndash;2012, 110.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuan, B., Oglesby, D.D., 2006. Heterogeneous fault stresses from previous earthquakes and the effect on dynamics of parallel strike-slip faults. J. Geophys. Res. Sol. Ea 111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuan, B., Oglesby, D.D., 2007. Nonuniform prestress from prior earthquakes and the effect on dynamics of branched fault systems. J. Geophys. Res. 112\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuman, T. Y., \u0026amp; Emre, \u0026Ouml;. (2013). The East Anatolian Fault: geometry, segmentation and jog characteristics. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 372(1), 495\u0026ndash;529. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEberhart-Phillips, D., Haeussler, P. J., Freymueller, J. T., Frankel, A. D., Rubin, C. M., Craw, P., et al. (2003). The 2002 Denali fault earthquake,\u003cbr\u003e Alaska: A large magnitude, slip-partitioned event. Science, 300(5622), 1113\u0026ndash;1118. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082703\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFan, W., Shearer, P. M., Ji, C., \u0026amp; Bassett, D. (2016). Multiple branching rupture of the 2009 Tonga‐Samoa earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 121(8), 5809\u0026ndash;5827. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreed, A. M., \u0026amp; Lin, J. (2001). Delayed triggering of the 1999 Hector Mine earthquake by viscoelastic stress transfer. Nature, 411(6834), 180\u0026ndash;183. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGabriel, Alice-Agnes, Taufiq Taufiqurrahman, Duo Li, Thomas Ulrich, Bo Li, Sara Carena, Alessandro Verdecchia, and Franti\u0026scaron;ek Gallovič. \u0026quot;Conversations between earthquakes: Dynamics and delays of the 2019 Ridgecrest rupture sequence.\u0026quot; (2022). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026uuml;vercin, S. E., Karabulut, H., Konca, A. \u0026Ouml;., Doğan, U., \u0026amp; Ergintav, S. (2022). Active seismotectonics of the East Anatolian Fault. Geophysical Journal International, 230(1), 50\u0026ndash;69. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026uuml;vercin, S. E., Konca, A. \u0026Ouml;., Karabulut, H., Eskik\u0026ouml;y, F., Hollingsworth, J., and Ergintav, S.: Preliminary Seismic and Geodetic Observations of the Mw7.8 and Mw7.6 Earthquakes in Eastern Turkey, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 24\u0026ndash;28 Apr 2023, EGU23-17619, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-17619, 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, R. A. (1998). Introduction to Special Section: Stress Triggers, Stress Shadows, and Implications for Seismic Hazard. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103(B10), 24347\u0026ndash;24358. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, R. A., \u0026amp; Simpson, R. W. (1996). In the shadow of 1857 - The effect of the great Ft Tejon earthquake on subsequent earthquakes in southern California. Geophysical Research Letters, 23(3), 229\u0026ndash;232. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHearn, E. H., McClusky, S., Ergintav, S., \u0026amp; Reilinger, R. E. (2009). Izmit earthquake postseismic deformation and dynamics of the North Anatolian Fault Zone. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(B8), B08405. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB006026\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHreinsd\u0026oacute;ttir, S., Freymueller, J. T., Fletcher, H. J., Larsen, C. F., \u0026amp; B\u0026uuml;rgmann, R. (2003). Coseismic slip distribution of the 2002 Mw7. 9 Denali faultearthquake, Alaska, determined from GPS measurements. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(13), 1670. https://doi.org/10.1029/\u003cbr\u003e 2003GL017447\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHikima, K., \u0026amp; Koketsu, K. (2005). Rupture processes of the 2004 Chuetsu (mid-Niigata prefecture) earthquake, Japan: A series of events in a complex fault system: THE 2004 CHUETSU, JAPAN, EARTHQUAKE. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(18), n/a-n/a. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing, G. C. P., Stein, R. S., \u0026amp; Jian, L. (1994). Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. Bulletin - Seismological Society of America, 84(3), 935\u0026ndash;953.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirby, E., Harkins, N., Wang, E., Shi, X., Fan, C., \u0026amp; Burbank, D. (2007). Slip rate gradients along the eastern Kunlun fault. Tectonics, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006TC002033\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarabulut, H., Paul, A., \u0026Ouml;zbakır, A. D., Erg\u0026uuml;n, T., \u0026amp; Şent\u0026uuml;rk, S. (2019). A new crustal model of the Anatolia\u0026ndash;Aegean domain: evidence for the dominant role of isostasy in the support of the Anatolian plateau. Geophysical Journal International, 218(1), 57-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKo\u0026ccedil;, A., \u0026amp; Kaymakcı, N. (2013). Kinematics of S\u0026uuml;rg\u0026uuml; Fault Zone (Malatya, Turkey): A remote sensing study. Journal of Geodynamics, 65, 292\u0026ndash;307. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., \u0026amp; Shi, Y. (2021). Space-Time Stress Variations on the Palu-Koro Fault Impacting the 2018 Mw 7.5 Palu Earthquake and Its Seismic Hazards. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 22(5), e2020GC009552. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GC009552\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., Dong, P., \u0026amp; Shi, Y. (2017). Stress change from the 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake and increased hazard in the southern Tibetan Plateau. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 267, 1\u0026ndash;8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2017.04.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., Dong, P., Zhu, B., \u0026amp; Shi, Y. (2018). Stress Shadow on the Southwest Portion of the Longmen Shan Fault Impacted the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake Rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123(11), 9963\u0026ndash;9981. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., Dong, P.Y., Shi, Y.L., 2017. Recurrence interval of the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake inferred from geodynamic modelling stress buildup and release. Journal of Geodynamics, 110:1-11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., Zhang, H., Chen, J., \u0026amp; Shi, Y. (2022). Stress Evolution Before and After the 2021 Mw 7.3 Maduo Earthquake in Northeastern Tibet and Its Influence on Seismic Hazards. Earth and Space Science, 9(6), e2022EA002325. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EA002325\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., Zhu, B., \u0026amp; Shi, Y. (2020). Do the Two Seismic Gaps in the Southwestern Section of the Longmen Shan Fault Present the Same Seismic Hazard? Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 125(3), e2019JB018160. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB018160\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., Zhu, B., Yang, X., \u0026amp; Shi, Y. (2016a). Geodynamic background of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake based on 3D visco-elastic numerical modelling. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 252, 23\u0026ndash;36. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., Zhu, B.J., Shi, Y.L. (2016b). Lithospheric rheology and Moho upheaval control the generation mechanism of the intraplate earthquakes in the North China Basin. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 121:153-164. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, D., Duan, B., Prush, V. B., Oskin, M. E., \u0026amp; Liu-Zeng, J. (2021). Observation-constrained multicycle dynamic models of the Pingding Shan earthquake gate along the Altyn Tagh Fault. Tectonophysics, 814, 228948.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMallman, E. P., \u0026amp; Parsons, T. (2008). A global search for stress shadows. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 113(B12). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005336\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMedved, I., Polat, G., \u0026amp; Koulakov, I. (2021). Crustal Structure of the Eastern Anatolia Region (Turkey) Based on Seismic Tomography. Geosciences, 11(2), 91.https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020091\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeghraoui, M., Gomez, F., Sbeinati, R., Van Der Woerd, J., Mouty, M., Darkal, A. N., et al. (2003). Evidence for 830 years of seismic quiescence from palaeoseismology, archaeoseismology and historical seismicity along the Dead Sea fault in Syria. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 210(1\u0026ndash;2), 35\u0026ndash;52. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMelgar, D., Taymaz, T., Ganas, A., Crowell, B., \u0026Ouml;calan, T., Kahraman, M., Tsironi, V., Yolsal-\u0026Ccedil;evikbilen, S., Valkaniotis, S., Irmak, T. S., Eken, T., Erman, C., \u0026Ouml;zkan, B., Dogan, A. H., \u0026amp; Altuntaş, C. (2023). Sub- and super-shear ruptures during the 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquake doublet in SE T\u0026uuml;rkiye. Seismica, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.387\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuehlberger, W. R., \u0026amp; Gordon, M. B. (1987). Observations on the complexity of the east anatolian fault, turkey. Journal of Structural Geology, 9(7), 899\u0026ndash;903. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNalbant, S. S., McCloskey, J., Steacy, S., \u0026amp; Barka, A. A. (2002). Stress accumulation and increased seismic risk in eastern Turkey. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 195(3\u0026ndash;4), 291\u0026ndash;298.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNissen, E., Elliott, J. R., Sloan, R. A., Craig, T. J., Funning, G. J., Hutko, A., et al. (2016). Limitations of rupture forecasting exposed by instantaneously triggered earthquake doublet. Nature Geoscience, 9(4), 330\u0026ndash;336. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOgden, C. S., \u0026amp; Bastow, I. D. (2022). The crustal structure of the Anatolian Plate from receiver functions and implications for the uplift of the central and eastern Anatolian plateaus. Geophysical Journal International, 229(2), 1041\u0026ndash;1062. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggab513\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkuwaki, R., Yuji, Y., Taymaz, T., \u0026amp; Hicks, S. (2023). Multi-scale rupture growth with alternating directions in a complex fault network during the 2023 south-eastern T\u0026uuml;rkiye and Syria earthquake doublet (preprint). https://doi.org/10.31223/X5RD4W\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOzacar, A. A., Zandt, G., Gilbert, H., \u0026amp; Beck, S. L. Seismic images of crustal variations beneath the East Anatolian Plateau (Turkey) from teleseismic receiver functions. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 2010, 340(1), 485-496.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eP. Martin Mai, Theodoros Aspiotis, Tariq Anwar Aquib, Eduardo Valero Cano, David CastroCruz, Armando Espindola-Carmona, Bo Li, Xing Li, Jihong Liu, R\u0026eacute;mi Matrau1, Adriano Nobile, Kadek Hendrawan Palgunadi, Matthieu Ribot, Laura Parisi, Cahli Suhendi1, Yuxiang Tang, Bora Yalcin, Ulaş Avşar, Yann Klinger, and Sigurj\u0026oacute;n J\u0026oacute;nsson. The destructive earthquake doublet of February 6, 2023, in south-central T\u0026uuml;rkiye and northwestern Syria: initial observations and analyses. The Seismic Record, 2023, Accepted.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePayne, R. M., \u0026amp; Duan, B. (2015). Influence of initial stress and rupture initiation parameters on forbidden zone rupture propagation. Geophysical Journal International, 201(1), 70-77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamos, M. D., Neo, J. C., Thakur, P., Huang, Y., \u0026amp; Wei, S. (2020). Stress changes on the Garlock fault during and after the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 110(4), 1752-1764.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReasenberg, P. A., \u0026amp; Simpson, R. W. (1992). Response of Regional Seismicity to the Static Stress Change Produced by the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Science, 255(5052), 1687\u0026ndash;1690. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReilinger, R., McClusky, S., Vernant, P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Cakmak, R., et al. (2006). GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions: EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN ACTIVE TECTONICS. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111(B5), https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004051\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi Yao-Lin \u0026amp; Cao Jian-Ling. Some aspects in static stress change calculation - case study on Wenchuan earthquake. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 2010, 53(1): 102-110, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0001-5733.2010.01.011. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimpson, R. W., Schulz, S. S., Dietz, L. D., \u0026amp; Burford, R. O. (1988). The response of creeping parts of the San Andreas fault to earthquakes on nearby faults: Two examples. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 126(2), 665\u0026ndash;685. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStein, R. S. (1999). The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. Nature, 402(6762), 605\u0026ndash;609. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSunbul, F. (2019). Time-dependent stress increase along the major faults in eastern Turkey. Journal of Geodynamics, 126, 23\u0026ndash;31. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTesauro, M., Kaban, M. K., Petrunin, A. G., El Khrepy, S., \u0026amp; Al-Arifi, N. (2018). Strength and elastic thickness variations in the Arabian Plate: A combination of temperature, composition and strain rates of the lithosphere. Tectonophysics, 746, 398\u0026ndash;411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.03.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUlrich, T., Gabriel, A.-A., Ampuero, J.-P., \u0026amp; Xu, W. (2019). Dynamic viability of the 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikōura earthquake cascade on weak crustal faults. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1213. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09125-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVanacore E A, Taymaz T, Saygin E. Moho structure of the Anatolian Plate from receiver function analysis. Geophysical Journal International, 2013, 193(1): 329-337.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUSGS 2023a (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/finite- fault , version 4, updated on Feb. 21th 2023)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUSGS 2023b (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz/finite- fault, version 3, updated on Feb. 17th 2023)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan der Woerd, J., Ryerson, F. J., Tapponnier, P., Gaudemer, Y., Finkel, R., Meriaux, A. S., et al. (1998). Holocene left-slip rate determined by cosmogenic surface dating on the Xidatan segment of the Kunlun fault (Qinghai, China). Geology, 26(8), 695\u0026ndash;698. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan der Woerd, J., Ryerson, F. J., Tapponnier, P., Meriaux, A.-S., Gaudemer, Y., Meyer, B., et al. (2000). Uniform slip-rate along the Kunlun Fault: Implications for seismic behaviour and large-scale tectonics. Geophysical Research Letters, 27(16), 2353\u0026ndash;2356. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVanacore, E. A., Taymaz, T., \u0026amp; Saygin, E. (2013). Moho structure of the Anatolian Plate from receiver function analysis. Geophysical Journal International, 193(1), 329\u0026ndash;337. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggs107\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, R. J., Lorenzo-Mart\u0026iacute;n, F., \u0026amp; Roth, F. (2006). PSGRN/PSCMP\u0026mdash;A new code for calculating co-and post-seismic deformation, geoid and gravity changes based on the viscoelastic-gravitational dislocation theory. Computers \u0026amp; Geosciences, 32(4), 527\u0026ndash;541. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, R. J., Martı́n, F. L., \u0026amp; Roth, F. (2003). Computation of deformation induced by earthquakes in a multi-layered elastic crust\u0026mdash;FORTRAN programs EDGRN/EDCMP. Computers \u0026amp; Geosciences, 29(2), 195\u0026ndash;207.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWen, Y. Y., Oglesby, D. D., Duan, B., \u0026amp; Ma, K. F. (2012). Dynamic rupture simulation of the 2008 M W 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake with heterogeneous initial stress. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(4), 1892-1898.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYue, H., Lay, T., \u0026amp; Koper, K. D. (2012). En \u0026eacute;chelon and orthogonal fault ruptures of the 11 April 2012 great intraplate earthquakes. Nature, 490(7419), 245\u0026ndash;249. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZahradn\u0026iacute;k, J., Turhan, F., Sokos, E., \u0026amp; Gallovič, F. (2023). Asperity-like (segmented) structure of the 6 February 2023 Turkish earthquakes (preprint). Geophysics and Seismology. https://doi.org/10.31223/X5T666\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu, H. (2018). High Vp/Vs ratio in the crust and uppermost mantle beneathvolcanoes in the Central and Eastern Anatolia. Geophysical Journal International, 214(3), 2151-2163.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nature-portfolio","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Nature Portfolio","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2922091/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2922091/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eEarthquake interaction across multiple time scales can reveal complex stress evolution and rupture patterns. Here, we investigate the stress change's role in the 2023 Mw 7.8 and 7.6 earthquake doublet along the Eastern Anatolian Fault (EAF), using simulations of 21 historical earthquakes (M ≥ 6.1) from 1822 to 2023. Focusing on six cascading sub-events during the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Sequence, we reveal how one sub-event's stress alteration can impact the emergence and rupture dynamics of subsequent sub-events. Our analysis unveils that the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake was deferred by 52 years due to stress shadow effects from historical events, while the 2023 Mw 7.6 earthquake was accelerated by 26 years as a result of stress increases from historical events and ultimately triggered by the 2023 Mw 7.8 earthquake. This study underscores the importance of grasping earthquake preparation, rupture initiation, and propagation in the context of intricate fault systems worldwide. Based on these results, we draw attention to heightened seismic hazards in the Elazig-Bingol seismic gap of the EAF and the northern section of the Dead Sea Fault, necessitating increased monitoring and preparedness efforts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Decoding stress patterns of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake doublet","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2023-05-18 13:49:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2922091/v1","editorialEvents":[],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"communications-earth-and-environment","isNatureJournal":true,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"commsenv","sideBox":"Learn more about [Communications Earth and Environment](https://www.nature.com/commsenv/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Communications Earth \u0026 Environment","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Communications Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"55b61382-6492-4b8b-b425-0c248c11be61","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 18th, 2023","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":21441832,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Solid Earth sciences/Seismology"},{"id":21441833,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Solid Earth sciences/Geodynamics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2023-09-20T18:15:51+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2023-05-18 13:49:24","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-2922091","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-2922091","identity":"rs-2922091","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"cBFmMYwuxLRRLfASyISRj","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}