{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027009646302250803, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020578778135048232, 'mean_word_length': 5.248995983935743, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Tests of Remote Dynamic Aftershock Triggering by Small Mainshocks Using Taiwan’s Earthquake Catalog


 To understand earthquake interaction and forecast time-dependent seismic hazard, it is essential to determine which static or dynamic stress change due to a mainshock plays a major role in triggering its aftershocks and subsequent mainshocks. Using small mainshocks (2≤M<3) and their aftershocks, Felzer and Brodsky (2006) argued that mainshock induced dynamic stress change is responsible for earthquake triggering in a form of power-law decay within 50 km. Richards-Dinger et al. (2010), however, studied the foreshock decay and claimed that mainshock had no effect at distances outside its static stress triggering range, which required an alternative explanation. We tested these hypotheses using Taiwan’s earthquake catalog by taking advantage of its lack of large events and the absence of active volcano and associated significant seismic swarm. In examining earthquakes occurring in 1994–2010, following Felzer and Brodsky’s method, we found a linear aftershock density with a power-law decay of −1.12±0.38 that is very similar to the one seen in Felzer and Brodsky (2006). None of the mainshock–aftershock pairs were associated with an M 7 rupture event or M 6 event. We further demonstrated that the density decay in a short time period is more likely a randomized behavior than mainshock–aftershock triggering. These pairs were located mostly in high geothermal gradient areas, which are probably triggered by a small-scale aseismic process.