Figure 2. The perimeter of the ‘source’ earthquake that imparted the stress is outlined in black. The sources in this model are the 2024 magnitude 7.0 event (rectangle bordered in bold), and the receivers of stress are the 2025 rupture surface (the fine mesh rectangle), and the megathrust surface (coarse mesh rectangle). Stress imparted by the 2024 foreshock brought the epicentral patch of the 2025 magnitude 7.4 foreshock about 1.5 bar closer to failure, and the megathrust surface up to 0.5 bars closer to failure, although there are adjacent patches of stress decrease (blue). Credit: Temblor, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Figure 2. The perimeter of the ‘source’ earthquake that imparted the stress is outlined in black. The sources in this model are the 2024 magnitude 7.0 event (rectangle bordered in bold), and the receivers of stress are the 2025 rupture surface (the fine mesh rectangle), and the megathrust surface (coarse mesh rectangle). Stress imparted by the 2024 foreshock brought the epicentral patch of the 2025 magnitude 7.4 foreshock about 1.5 bar closer to failure, and the megathrust surface up to 0.5 bars closer to failure, although there are adjacent patches of stress decrease (blue). Credit: Temblor, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Figure 2. The perimeter of the ‘source’ earthquake that imparted the stress is outlined in black. The sources in this model are the 2024 magnitude 7.0 event (rectangle bordered in bold), and the receivers of stress are the 2025 rupture surface (the fine mesh rectangle), and the megathrust surface (coarse mesh rectangle). Stress imparted by the 2024 foreshock brought the epicentral patch of the 2025 magnitude 7.4 foreshock about 1.5 bar closer to failure, and the megathrust surface up to 0.5 bars closer to failure, although there are adjacent patches of stress decrease (blue). Credit: Temblor, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Follow her
Latest posts by Alka Tripathy-Lang, Ph.D. (see all)