I awakened to be late to attending the GSA meeting today. I had not checked the time. 7am is too early, but i understand the time differences…
As i was logging into Zoom, my coworker emailed our Tsunami Unit group about a M7 in the eastern Mediterranean. So, I shifted gears a bit. But i had my poster to present, so i had to stay somewhat focused on that.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000c7y0/executive
Today, in the wee hours (my time in California), there was a M 7.0 earthquake offshore of western Turkey in the Icarian Sea. The earthquake mechanism (i.e. focal mechanism or moment tensor) was for an extensional type of an earthquake, slip along a normal fault.
I immediately thought about some quakes/deprems that happened there several years ago. This area is an interesting and complicated part of the world, tectonically.

• 2017.07.20 M 6.7 Turkey
• 2017.06.12 M 6.3 Turkey/Greece

To the north is a strike-slip plate boundary localized along the North Anatolia fault system. This is a right lateral fault system, where the plates move side by side, relative to each other. See the introductory information links below to learn more about different types of faults.
To the south is a convergent plate boundary (plates are moving towards each other) related to (1) the Alpide Belt, a convergent plate boundary formed in the Cenozoic that extends from Australia to Morocco. On the southern side of Greece and western Turkey, there are subduction zones where the Africa plate dives northward beneath the Eurasia and Anatolia plates.
The region of today’s earthquake is in a zone of north-south oriented extension. This extension appears to be in part due to gravitational collapse of uplifted metamorphic core complexes.
There are several “massifs” that were emplaced in the past, lifted up, creating gravitational potential. The normal faults may have formed as the upper crust extended. It is complicated here, so i am probably missing some details. But, with the references i provide below, y’all can read more on your own. Feel free to contact me if i wrote something incorrect. I love my peer reviewers (you).
So, this N-S extension creates east-west oriented valleys/basins with E-W striking (trending) faults. There are south dipping faults on the north sides and north dipping faults on the south side of these valleys.
These structures are called rifts. A famous rift is the East Africa Rift.
There are two main rifts in western Turkey, the Büyük Menderes Graben and the Küçük Menderes Graben Systems. If we project these rifts westward, we can see another rift, the rift that forms the Gulf of Corinth in Greece, the Gulf of Corinth Rift. This is one of the most actively spreading rifts in the world.
In addition to the large earthquake, which caused lots of building damage and also caused over a dozen deaths so far (sadly), there was recorded a tsunami on the tide gages in the region. I use the IOC website to obtain tide gage data. This is an excellent service. There are only a few national tide gage online websites that rival this one.
It is also highly likely that there were landslides or that there was liquefaction somewhere in the region. The USGS models i present below show a high likelihood for these earthquake triggered processes.

Below is my interpretive poster for this earthquake

• I plot the seismicity from the past month, with diameter representing magnitude (see legend). I include earthquake epicenters from 1920-2020 with magnitudes M ≥ 7.0 in one version.
• I plot the USGS fault plane solutions (moment tensors in blue and focal mechanisms in orange), possibly in addition to some relevant historic earthquakes.
• A review of the basic base map variations and data that I use for the interpretive posters can be found on the Earthquake Reports page. I have improved these posters over time and some of this background information applies to the older posters.
• Some basic fundamentals of earthquake geology and plate tectonics can be found on the Earthquake Plate Tectonic Fundamentals page.

I include some inset figures. Some of the same figures are located in different places on the larger scale map below.

• On the left is a map from Armijo et al. (1999) that shows the plate boundary faults and tectonic plates in the region. This M 7.0 earthquake, denoted by the blue circle.
• In the upper left corner is a map that shows the tectonic strain in the region. Areas of red are deforming more from tectonic motion than are areas that are blue. Learn more about the Global Strain Rate Map project here.
• To the right of the strain map is a comparison of the shaking intensity modeled by the USGS and the shaking intensity based on peoples’ “boots on the ground” observations. A modeled estimate of intensity is shown by the color overlay and labels MMI 4, 5, 6, 7. The USGS Did You Feel It observations are the colored circles (color = intensity) and labeled dyfi 6.2 for example.
• On the upper right and right center are two maps that show (bottom) liquefaction susceptibility and (top) landslide probability. These are based on empirical models from the USGS that show the chance an area may have experienced these processes that may have happened as a result of the ground shaking from the earthquake. I spend more time explaining these types of models and what they represent in this Earthquake Report for the recent event in Albania.
• Faults shown on these maps come from the DISS fault database from INGV and their collaborators. These data have been incorporated into the Global Earthquake Model. The red lines represent the top of the fault plane and the green shapes represent the fault planes as they dip into the Earth. Note how the North Anatolia fault, which is a vertically dipping strike-slip fault, appears to not have fault planes. Why do you think that is?
• In the lower right corner is a map showing epicenters for earthquakes since 30 July 2020 (from EMSC).
• Along the bottom of the poster are several tsunami plots from the region. The Bodrum tide gage is on a south facing shoreline, so the waves are not directed directly at this gage. The Kos Marina and Hrakleio gages are more directly facing the earthquake. Note which gages have larger waves. Why do you think this is so?

• Here is the map with a month’s seismicity plotted.
• For the century record of M>7 earthquakes I use the USGS National Earthquake Information Center as a source of data.
• However, there is a local network of earthquake records from CSEM EMSC here.

• Here are the main tide gages that have decent tsunami records in the Aegean region. I offset these records vertically a modest amount for the plot, so disregard the absolute elevation values.
• I made a crude measurements for the wave height of these tsunami records (neglecting to take into account changes in tide). The locations are shown in the map.

Other Report Pages

Some Relevant Discussion and Figures

• Here is a lovely plate tectonic overview map, highlighting the plate boundary faults, as well as the crustal faults (Taymaz et a., 2007).




Seismicity of the Eastern Mediterranean region and surroundings reported by USGS–NEIC during 1973–2007 with magnitudes for M . 3 superimposed on a shaded relief map derived from the GTOPO-30 Global Topography Data taken after USGS. Bathymetry data are derived from GEBCO/97–BODC, provided by GEBCO (1997) and Smith & Sandwell (1997a, b).

• Here is the tectonic map from Dilek and Sandvol (2009).




Tectonic map of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean region showing the main plate boundaries, major suture zones, fault systems and tectonic units. Thick, white arrows depict the direction and magnitude (mm a21) of plate convergence; grey arrows mark the direction of extension (Miocene–Recent). Orange and purple delineate Eurasian and African plate affinities, respectively. Key to lettering: BF, Burdur fault; CACC, Central Anatolian Crystalline Complex; DKF, Datc¸a–Kale fault (part of the SW Anatolian Shear Zone); EAFZ, East Anatolian fault zone; EF, Ecemis fault; EKP, Erzurum–Kars Plateau; IASZ, Izmir–Ankara suture zone; IPS, Intra–Pontide suture zone; ITS, Inner–Tauride suture; KF, Kefalonia fault; KOTJ, Karliova triple junction; MM, Menderes massif; MS, Marmara Sea; MTR, Maras triple junction; NAFZ, North Anatolian fault zone; OF, Ovacik fault; PSF, Pampak–Sevan fault; TF, Tutak fault; TGF, Tuzgo¨lu¨ fault; TIP, Turkish–Iranian plateau (modified from Dilek 2006).

• This is the Wouldloper (2009) tectonic map of the Mediterranean Sea.

• This is a fantastic figure, yet quite complicated. This map shows teh plate boundaries, the GPS motions, and the tectonic strain for the region (Perouse et al., 2012).
• We use GPS sites at specific locations to measure how fast the Earth’s crust moves due to plate tectonics and other reasons. These GPS sites are almost constantly recording their geographic position. If a GPS site is moving, we can take two observations (lets say a year apart), measure their relative distance, and divide the time between the measurements to get the velocity (the speed) that this GPS site is moving. The white vectors (the arrows) show the direction those GPS sites are moving and the length of the vector represents its velocity. The black arrows show what the plate motion rates are at the plate boundaries and these are modeled using lots of different data sources (not just GPS).
• Tectonic strain is a measure of how much the Earth’s crust is deforming over time. The higher the tectonic strain rate (i.e. red), the more tectonic stress is being accumulated in the crust and along faults. Areas of higher strain are places where there are more likely to be larger or more (or both) earthquakes.




Present-day kinematic and tectonic map encompassing the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, summarizing our main results and interpretations. Our kinematic model includes rigid-block motions as well as localized and distributed strain. Central-SW Aegean block (CSW AEG block) and East Anatolian block (East Anat. block) are purely kinematic and directly results from strain modeling (Figure 5). AP-IO Block is our Apulian-Ionian block with tentative tectonic boundaries. Rotation pole of this Apulian-Ionian block relative to Nubia (Nu WAp-Io) and to Eurasia (Eu WAp-Io) are shown with their 95% confidence ellipse.

• This is the Ersoy et al. (2014) map showing their interpretation of the modern deformation in the northern Aegean Sea and western Turkey.




Geological map showing the distribution of the Menderes Extensional Metamorphic Complex (MEMC), Oligocene–Miocene volcanic and sedimentary units and volcanic centers in the Aegean Extensional Province (compiled from geological maps of Greece (IGME) and Turkey (MTA), and adapted from Ersoy and Palmer, 2013). Extensional deformation field with rotation (rotational extension) is shown with gray field, and simplified from Brun and Sokoutis (2012), Kissel et al. (2003) and van Hinsbergen and Schmid (2012). İzmir–Balıkesir Transfer zone (İBTZ) give the outer limit for the rotational extension, and also limit of ellipsoidal structure of the MEMC. MEMC developed in two stages: the first one was accommodated during early Miocene by the Simav Detachment Fault (SDF) in the north; and the second one developed during Middle Miocene along the Gediz (Alaşehir) Detachment Fault (GDF) and Küçük Menderes Detachment Fault (KMDF). Extensional detachments were also accommodated by strike-slip movement along the İBTZ (Ersoy et al., 2011) and Uşak–Muğla Transfer Zone (Çemen et al., 2006; Karaoğlu and Helvacı, 2012). Other main core complexes in the Aegean, the Central Rhodope (CRCC), Southern Rhodope (SRCC), Kesebir–Kardamos Dome (KKD) and Cycladic (CCC) Core Complexes are also shown. The area bordered with dashed green line represents the surface trace of the asthenospheric window between the Aegean and Cyprean subducted slabs (Biryol et al., 2011; de Boorder et al., 1998). See text for detail.

• This is a great figure showing another interpretation to explain the extension in this region (slab rollback and mantle flow) from Brun and Sokoutis (2012).




Mantle flow pattern at Aegean scale powered by slab rollback in rotation around vertical axis located at Scutary-Pec (Albania). A: Map view of fl ow lines above (red) and below (blue) slab. B: Three-dimensional sketch showing how slab tear may accommodate slab rotation. Mantle fl ow above and below slab in red and blue, respectively. Yellow arrows show crustal stretching.

A: Tectonic map of the Aegean and Anatolian region showing the main active structures
(black lines), the main sutures zones (thick violet or blue lines), the main thrusts in the Hellenides where they have not been reworked by later extension (thin blue lines), the North Cycladic Detachment (NCDS, in red) and its extension in the Simav Detachment (SD), the main metamorphic units and their contacts; AlW: Almyropotamos window; BD: Bey Daglari; CB: Cycladic Basement; CBBT: Cycladic Basement basal thrust; CBS: Cycladic Blueschists; CHSZ: Central Hellenic Shear Zone; CR: Corinth Rift; CRMC: Central Rhodope Metamorphic Complex; GT: Gavrovo–Tripolitza Nappe; KD: Kazdag dome; KeD: Kerdylion Detachment; KKD: Kesebir–Kardamos dome; KT: Kephalonia Transform Fault; LN: Lycian Nappes; LNBT: Lycian Nappes Basal Thrust; MCC: Metamorphic Core Complex; MG: Menderes Grabens; NAT: North Aegean Trough; NCDS: North Cycladic Detachment System; NSZ: Nestos Shear Zone; OlW: Olympos Window; OsW: Ossa Window; OSZ: Ören Shear Zone; Pel.: Peloponnese; ÖU: Ören Unit; PQN: Phyllite–Quartzite Nappe; SiD: Simav Detachment; SRCC: South Rhodope Core Complex; StD: Strymon Detachment; WCDS: West Cycladic Detachment System; ZD: Zaroukla Detachment. B: Seismicity. Earthquakes are taken from the USGS-NEIC database. Colour of symbols gives the depth (blue for shallow depths) and size gives the magnitude (from 4.5 to 7.6).

C: GPS velocity field with a fixed Eurasia after Reilinger et al. (2010) D: the domain affected by distributed post-orogenic extension in the Oligocene and the Miocene and the stretching lineations in the exhumed metamorphic complexes.

E: The thick blue lines illustrate the schematized position of the slab at ~150 km according to the tomographic model of Piromallo and Morelli (2003), and show the disruption of the slab at three positions and possible ages of these tears discussed in the text. Velocity anomalies are displayed in percentages with respect to the reference model sp6 (Morelli and Dziewonski, 1993). Coloured symbols represent the volcanic centres between 0 and 3 Ma after Pe-Piper and Piper (2006). F: Seismic anisotropy obtained from SKS waves (blue bars, Paul et al., 2010) and Rayleigh waves (green and orange bars, Endrun et al., 2011). See also Sandvol et al. (2003). Blue lines show the direction of stretching in the asthenosphere, green bars represent the stretching in the lithospheric mantle and orange bars in the lower crust.

G: Focal mechanisms of earthquakes over the Aegean Anatolian region.

• Here is another map showing the GPS plate motion rates from Perouse et al. (2012). Note the scale on the two map panels are different. The rates on the map on the right are much faster than the rates in Africa.




Input GPS velocities of the model. Velocities are in Eurasia fixed reference frame with their respective 95% confidence ellipse. Velocity vectors are color coded relative to the study they have been taken from (see paper for more details). (a) GPS velocities of the entire Nubian plate used to constrain the Nubia–Eurasia relative motion. Nubia–Eurasia rotation pole defined in this and previous studies are shown with their 1s confidence ellipse: circle, Calais et al. [2003]; diamond, Le Pichon and Kreemer [2010]; open square, D’Agostino et al. [2008]; triangle, Argus et al. [2010]; filled square, Reilinger et al. [2006]; red star, present study. Parameters of these rotation poles are summarized in Table 2. (b) Focus on the GPS velocities in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean region.

• Here is a map that shows historic earthquake mechanisms (Perouse et al., 2012).




Input seismic moment tensors of the model. Fault plane solutions are from the Harvard CMT catalog (from 1976 to 2007) and the Regional Centroid Moment Tensor (RCMT) catalog (from 1995 to 2007). Location and hypocenter depth of the events are relocalized according to the Engdahl et al. [1998] catalog.

Those Rifts

• First we can see this map that highlights all the grabens mapped in the region. A graben is basically a block of Earth that has moved relatively down, forming a valley.
• These grabens are bound on at least one side by a normal fault (shown here with stippled lines pointing in the direction that the faults dip into the Earth.




Outline geological map of western Anatolia showing Neogene and Quaternary basins [simplified from Bingo1 (1989).

• Here is a map of the western part of the Buyuk Menderes Graben valley (Bozcurt 2000). The main reason to show this is because it shows the location of the cross-section shown next (in the box labeled “Figure 6b”).
• The island labeled Chios here is also called Samos on other maps.




Simplified geological map of the northern margin of the Btiytik Menderes Graben in the area between Germencik and Umurlu.

• Here is the cross section that shows their interpretation of the tectonic faults in the subsurface.




Geological cross-section of the northern margin of the Bt~yt~k Menderes Graben (see Fig. 6b for location) based on fig. llb of Cohen et al. (1995). This cross-section indicates a total of c. 5 km of extension. Assuming a uniform extension rate, the age of the fault zone is (c. 5 km/1 mm a -1) 5 Ma. More details in the paper.

• Here is a low-angle oblique illustrative view of the Graben forming basin common in the region (Emre and Sozbilir, 2007..

• Let’s now venture offshore into the ocean. This map shows some geologic units, some mapped crustal faults, and some seismic lines (Ocakoglu et al., 2005). These seismic lines are shown as rows of dots.
• Each straight dotted line represents a path that a research vessel took to make observations about the subsurface using seismic waves. The 30 Oct 2020 M 7.0 earthquake was to the north of Samos.
• None of the seismic lines are optimally located to look for the fault that ruptured earlier today, but they may help us learn about what might be possible here.




Geology map of the study area (simplified from MTA 1: 500,000 scale geology map) and location of the seismic lines. Active faults are marked onland with bold lines.

• Here are some seismic lines (seismic reflection profiles), whose locations are shown on the above map. The upper two panels are relevant (see line 10 on the map). These are consistent with normal faults on the north side of the basin.




Time migrated seismic sections, offshore Teke and Karaburun, showing active normal faults marked with white lines and strike-slip faults with black lines (see Fig. 3A for locations). Vertical exaggeration is ~2. Observed vertical displacement on the seafloor and basement surface by normal fault (marked with bold circle on Line-10) looks the same, thus this normal fault is Quaternary age. On line-18, vertical displacement seen on basement units are greater than displacement on Pliocene–Quaternary deposits due to fault marked with a bold circle thus this normal fault can be interpreted as Later Miocene–Pliocene age.

• I include this map to show that there are lots of faults in this area. This is their final fault map based on the interpretations of many seismic lines.




(A) The correlations between offshore and onshore active fault systems in the study region. N–S, NE–SW and NW–SE oriented lines and dashed-lines show interpreted active strike-slip faults and their possible extensions. These faults are annotated with dNT for those at north and dST for those at south. E–W oriented lines and dashed lines show interpreted active normal faults and their possible continuations, with footwalls indicated by the plus symbol. (B) Simplified active fault map of the study area. The bold lines show the master active faults. (C) Pureshear model can explain the development of active structures in the study area.

• Below are a map and a cross section further to the east, in the eastern part of the Büyük Menderes Graben (Kaya, 2015). They were studying geotherm water in the region as it relates to the fault geometry and other factors. and, well, who doesn’t like a little pre-planning at a hot spring?




Geological map of western Turkey showing the Menderes massif and its subdivision into the AG Alasehir graben, the BMG Büyük Menderes graben, the CMM Central Menderes massif, the KMG Küçük Menderes graben, the NMM Northern Menderes massif and the SMM Southern Menderes massif, modified from Sengör and Bozkurt (2013).

• Here is the cross-section, showing normal faults bounding the graben.




(a) A conceptual model of geothermal circulation in the study area, (b) a deep seismic profile with the N–S direction taken from a 30 km west of study area (Nazilli region) (Çifçi et al., 2011). Roman numerals indicate the different sedimentary sequences.

• Let’s look at this yet another way. Below is a map and series of cross sections along the Küçük Menderes Graben (KMG). Rojay et al. (2005) take a look at the Plio-Quaternary history of the KMG. The KMG is the rift to the north of the Buyuk Menderes Graben.




Simplified geological map of the KMG showing the positions of geological cross-sections.

• Here is a series of cross sections along this basin, locaions are shown on the previous map.




Series of geological cross-sections showing various sectors of the KMG depicting horst and graben structures overprinted onto the huge synclinal structure (see Fig. 3 for positions of geological cross-sections).

• Here is their model of how the regional deformation is driven by the metamorphic core complex process.




Schematic tentative cross-sections showing the Miocene to Quaternary evolution of the KMG (modified from Erinç [66]). Note the continuing extension since Miocene.

Regional Cross Sections

• The following three figures are from Dilek and Sandvol, 2006. The locations of the cross sections are shown on the map as orange lines. Cross section G-G’ is located in the region of today’s earthquake.
• Here is the map (Dilek and Sandvol, 2006). I include the figure caption below in blockquote.




Simplified tectonic map of the Mediterranean region showing the plate boundaries, collisional zones, and directions of extension and tectonic transport. Red lines A through G show the approximate profile lines for the geological traverses depicted in Figure 2. MHSZ—mid-Hungarian shear zone; MP—Moesian platform; RM—Rhodope massif; IAESZ— Izmir-Ankara-Erzincan suture zone; IPS—Intra-Pontide suture zone; ITS—inner Tauride suture zone; NAFZ—north Anatolian fault zone; KB—Kirsehir block; EKP—Erzurum-Kars plateau; TIP—Turkish-Iranian plateau.

• Here are cross sections A-D (Dilek and Sandvol, 2006). I include the figure caption below in blockquote.






Simplified tectonic cross-sections across various segments of the broader Alpine orogenic belt.

(A) Eastern Alps. The collision of Adria with Europe produced a bidivergent crustal architecture with both NNW- and SSE-directed nappe structures that involved Tertiary molasse deposits, with deep-seated thrust faults that exhumed lower crustal rocks. The Austro-Alpine units north of the Peri-Adriatic lineament represent the allochthonous outliers of the Adriatic upper crust tectonically resting on the underplating European crust. The Penninic ophiolites mark the remnants of the Mesozoic ocean basin (Meliata). The Oligocene granitoids between the Tauern window and the Peri-Adriatic lineament represent the postcollisional intrusions in the eastern Alps. Modified from Castellarin et al. (2006), with additional data from Coward and Dietrich (1989); Lüschen et al. (2006); Ortner et al. (2006).

(B) Northern Apennines. Following the collision of Adria with the Apenninic platform and Europe in the late Miocene, the westward subduction of the Adriatic lithosphere and the slab roll-back (eastward) produced a broad extensional regime in the west (Apenninic back-arc extension) affecting the Alpine orogenic crust, and also a frontal thrust belt to the east. Lithospheric-scale extension in this broad back-arc environment above the west-dipping Adria lithosphere resulted in the development of a large boudinage structure in the European (Alpine) lithosphere. Modified from Doglioni et al. (1999), with data from Spakman and Wortel (2004); Zeck (1999).

(C) Western Mediterranean–Southern Apennines–Calabria. The westward subduction of the Ionian seafloor as part of Adria since ca. 23 Ma and the associated slab roll-back have induced eastward-progressing extension and lithospheric necking through time, producing a series of basins. Rifting of Sardinia from continental Europe developed the Gulf of Lion passive margin and the Algero-Provencal basin (ca. 15–10 Ma), then the Vavilov and Marsili sub-basins in the broader Tyrrhenian basin to the east (ca. 5 Ma to present). Eastward-migrating lithospheric-scale extension and
necking and asthenospheric upwelling have produced locally well-developed alkaline volcanism (e.g., Sardinia). Slab tear or detachment in the Calabria segment of Adria, as imaged through seismic tomography (Spakman and Wortel, 2004), is probably responsible for asthenospheric upwelling and alkaline volcanism in southern Calabria and eastern Sicily (e.g., Mount Etna). Modified from Séranne (1999), with additional data from Spakman et al. (1993); Doglioni et al. (1999); Spakman and Wortel (2004); Lentini et al. (this volume).

(D) Southern Apennines–Albanides–Hellenides. Note the break where the Adriatic Sea is located between the western and eastern sections along this traverse. The Adria plate and the remnant Ionian oceanic lithosphere underlie the Apenninic-Maghrebian orogenic belt. The Alpine-Tethyan and Apulian platform units are telescoped along ENE-vergent thrust faults. The Tyrrhenian Sea opened up in the latest Miocene as a back-arc basin behind the Apenninic-Maghrebian mountain belt. The Aeolian volcanoes in the Tyrrhenian Sea represent the volcanic arc system in this subduction-collision zone environment. Modified from Lentini et al. (this volume). The eastern section of this traverse across the Albanides-Hellenides in the northern Balkan Peninsula shows a bidivergent crustal architecture, with the Jurassic Tethyan ophiolites (Mirdita ophiolites in Albania and Western Hellenic ophiolites in Greece) forming the highest tectonic nappe, resting on the Cretaceous and younger flysch deposits of the Adria affinity to the west and the Pelagonia affinity to the east. Following the emplacement of the Mirdita- Hellenic ophiolites onto the Pelagonian ribbon continent in the Early Cretaceous, the Adria plate collided with Pelagonia-Europe obliquely starting around ca. 55 Ma. WSW-directed thrusting, developed as a result of this oblique collision, has been migrating westward into the peri-Adriatic depression. Modified from Dilek et al. (2005).

(E) Dinarides–Pannonian basin–Carpathians. The Carpathians developed as a result of the diachronous collision of the Alcapa and Tsia lithospheric blocks, respectively, with the southern edge of the East European platform during the early to middle Miocene (Nemcok et al., 1998; Seghedi et al., 2004). The Pannonian basin evolved as a back-arc basin above the eastward retreating European platform slab (Royden, 1988). Lithospheric-scale necking and boudinage development occurred synchronously with this extension and resulted in the isolation of continental fragments (e.g., the Apuseni mountains) within a broadly extensional Pannonian basin separating the Great Hungarian Plain and the Transylvanian subbasin. Steepening and tearing of the west-dipping slab may have caused asthenospheric flow and upwelling, decompressional melting, and alkaline volcanism (with an ocean island basalt–like mantle source) in the Eastern Carpathians. Modified from Royden (1988), with additional data from Linzer (1996); Nemcok et al. (1998); Doglioni et al. (1999); Seghedi et al. (2004).

(F) Arabia-Eurasia collision zone and the Turkish-Iranian plateau. The collision of Arabia with Eurasia around 13 Ma resulted in (1) development of a thick orogenic crust via intracontinental convergence and shortening and a high plateau and (2) westward escape of a lithospheric block (the Anatolian microplate) away from the collision front. The Arabia plate and the Bitlis-Pütürge ribbon continent were probably amalgamated earlier (ca. the Eocene) via a separate collision event within the Neo-Tethyan realm. BSZ—Bitlis suture zone; EKP—Erzurum-Kars plateau. A slab break-off and the subsequent removal of the lithospheric mantle (lithospheric delamination) beneath the eastern Anatolian accretionary complex caused asthenospheric upwelling and extensive melting, leading to continental volcanism and regional uplift, which has contributed to the high mean elevation of the Turkish-Iranian plateau. The Eastern Turkey Seismic Experiment results have shown that the crustal thickness here is ~ 45–48 km and that the Turkish-Iranian plateau is devoid of mantle lithosphere. The collision-induced convergence has been accommodated by active diffuse north-south shortening and oblique-slip faults dispersing crustal blocks both to the west and the east. The late Miocene through Plio-Quaternary volcanism appears to have become more alkaline toward the south in time. The Pleistocene Karacadag shield volcano in the Arabian foreland represents a local fissure eruption associated with intraplate extension. Data from Pearce et al. (1990); Keskin (2003); Sandvol et al. (2003); S¸engör et al. (2003).

(G) Africa-Eurasia collision zone and the Aegean extensional province. The African lithosphere is subducting beneath Eurasia at the Hellenic trench. The Mediterranean Ridge represents a lithospheric block between the Africa and Eurasian plate (Hsü, 1995). The Aegean extensional province straddles the Anatolide-Tauride and Sakarya continental blocks, which collided in the Eocene. NAF—North Anatolian fault. South-transported Tethyan ophiolite nappes were derived from the suture zone between these two continental blocks. Postcollisional granitic intrusions (Eocone and Oligo-Miocene, shown in red) occur mainly north of the suture zone and at the southern edge of the Sakarya continent. Postcollisional volcanism during the Eocene–Quaternary appears to have migrated southward and to have changed from calc-alkaline to alkaline in composition through time. Lithospheric-scale necking, reminiscent of the Europe-Apennine-Adria collision system, and associated extension are also important processes beneath the Aegean and have resulted in the exhumation of core complexes, widespread upper crustal attenuation, and alkaline and mid-ocean ridge basalt volcanism. Slab steepening and slab roll-back appear to have been at work resulting in subduction zone magmatism along the Hellenic arc.

• Here is another cross section that shows the temporal evolution of the tectonics of this region in the area of cross section G-G’ above (Dilek and Sandvol, 2009).




Late Mesozoic–Cenozoic geodynamic evolution of the western Anatolian orogenic belt as a result of collisional
and extensional processes in the upper plate of north-dipping subduction zone(s) within the Tethyan realm. See text
for discussion.

Europe

General Overview

Earthquake Reports

• 2020.10.30 M 7.0 Turkey
• 2020.05.02 M 6.6 Crete, Greece
• 2020.01.24 M 6.7 Turkey
• 2019.11.26 M 6.4 Albania
• 2018.10.25 M 6.8 Greece
• 2017.07.20 M 6.7 Turkey
• 2017.06.12 M 6.3 Turkey/Greece
• 2016.10.30 M 6.6 Italy
• 2016.10.30 M 6.6 Italy Update #1
• 2016.10.28 M 5.8 Tyrrhenian Sea
• 2016.10.26 M 6.1 Italy
• 2016.10.16 M 5.3 Greece/Albania
• 2016.08.23 M 6.2 Italy
• 2016.01.24 M 6.1 Mediterranean
• 2015.11.17 M 6.5 Greece
• 2015.04.16 M 6.0 Crete

Social Media

#EarthquakeReport for #Earthquake #Deprem and #Tsunami in the eastern #AegeanSea offshore of #Turkey

poster is now updated with aftershocks from @LastQuake
complicated tectonics
also a plot of tide gage data from the region

report here:https://t.co/vNuRdWw0Gs pic.twitter.com/SnYXwg2n3T

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) October 31, 2020

#EarthquakeReport #TsunamiReport for M7 offshore of #Turkey

small sized tsunami observed across the #AegeanSea https://t.co/i1lZJ0pkb3

analog event in 2017 and more tectonic background herehttps://t.co/jwwXh0SpXl pic.twitter.com/sk1HVbbCKD

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) October 30, 2020

Unfortunately, with the source so close to the coast, any Tsunami Early Warning System (#TEWS) has little room to warn the population in advanced to save lives. Prepareness/education is then the key ingredient.
Arrival times as prediceted by #Tsunami–#HySEA#IzmirEarthquake pic.twitter.com/8UEwItsLal

— Jorge Macías Sánchez (@JorgeMACSAN) October 30, 2020

İzmir #deprem Alaçatı #tsunami #deliklikoy pic.twitter.com/Fo74diHpBJ

— ulaş tuzak (@ulastuzak) October 30, 2020

M6.9 #earthquake (#deprem) strikes 66 km SW of #İzmir (#Turkey) 21 min ago. Updated map of its effects: pic.twitter.com/Kh3WMz6Hxi

— EMSC (@LastQuake) October 30, 2020

Video forwarded by a friend pic.twitter.com/P5g7H7LInn

— Tiernan Henry (@tiernanhenry) October 30, 2020

I'd be cautious. A similar EQ occurred offshore Bodrum, SW Turkey, in 2017 (Mw 6.6). Many assumed it ruptured the big mapped normal fault, but careful analysis showed it ruptured a smaller conjugate fault that would've been missing from this database. https://t.co/zEKYatNi1O

— Edwin Nissen (@faulty_data) October 30, 2020

#deprem geçmiş olsun İzmir 2020 son hızıyla devam ediyor. pic.twitter.com/cZc3rgWV0e

— jojomiyo (@jojomiyo1) October 30, 2020

Fully automatic processing (beta-version) of the expected permament deformation and #InSAR fringes for the M 7.0 #earthquake in #dodecanese (#Greece), 11:51 (UTC).

Focal mechanism from USGS, both nodal planes used.

With @antandre71 pic.twitter.com/TQiaoDgYf7

— Simone Atzori (@SimoneAtzori73) October 30, 2020

Absolutely terrible scenes coming out of Turkey after the M7.0 earthquake. My thoughts are with all of the people impacted by this event. 💔 https://t.co/gs8Wj8Cj5a

— Dr. Wendy Boo – hon 👻 (@DrWendyRocks) October 30, 2020

The October 30 M7 EQ offshore Samos Island, Greece, occurred as the result of normal faulting at a shallow crustal depth within the Eurasia tectonic plate in the E Aegean Sea. This indicates N-S oriented extension that is common in the Aegean Sea. 🍫 https://t.co/r5i9Ni1S1B pic.twitter.com/C6CyLDOlZ1

— USGS Earthquakes (@USGS_Quakes) October 30, 2020

Η #Σάμος άντεξε στο τρομακτικό μέγεθος των 6,7 ρίχτερ ευτυχώς δεν έχουμε θύματα!! #Σεισμός pic.twitter.com/Sd00bTBOd5

— Θεοδόσης Ζερβουδάκης (@tzervoudakis) October 30, 2020

El terremoto de Turquía de hace un rato llevó a un desastre tremendo. Uno que se da por la falta de preparación ante algo así, sobre todo en la parte ingenieril.

Tendrá magnitud 7, pero a 10 km de profundidad golpea fuerte a las ciudades cercanas, que estaban mal paradas pic.twitter.com/vomUd3Xauu

— Cristian Farías (@cfariasvega) October 30, 2020

30 Ekim 2020 #Seferihisar açıkları (#İzmir)/Sisam (M6.6/6.9) #depremi anaşokundan itibaren 1.0 ile 5.1 arasında değişen toplam 85 deprem oldu. Depremler D-B doğrultulu normal fay boyunca dağılım göstermektedir. pic.twitter.com/65ULhiqEq2

— Dr. Ramazan Demirtaş (@Paleosismolog) October 30, 2020

İzmir'de su seviyesi yükseldi. Tsunami benzeri görüntüler ortaya çıkıyor.#deprem pic.twitter.com/dbxCCgks5C

— Politikaloji🇹🇷 (@politikaloji) October 30, 2020

Location of Samos Mw7 #earthquake on Aegean Sea seismo-tectonic sketch. In yellow, grabens / major extension zones. Today's earthquake happened on a major normal fault bounding one of these grabens. Map from Armijo et al. GJI, 1996 pic.twitter.com/qx46D6peTS

— Robin Lacassin (@RLacassin) October 30, 2020

Seferihisar'da tsunami…
Deniz suyu ilçeyi kapladı…
İzmir Seferihisar'da 6.6 büyüklüğündeki depremin ardından tsunami meydana geldi.#İzmir #deprem #izmirdedeprem #Tsunami pic.twitter.com/kCugei77Zj

— FORUM ATMOSFER (@forumatmosfer) October 30, 2020

Watch the waves from the M7.0 #earthquake near Turkey roll across seismic stations in Europe. https://t.co/SoZMmJHvCU (THREAD) pic.twitter.com/8YKQHaj2yf

— IRIS Earthquake Sci (@IRIS_EPO) October 30, 2020

Map of extension responsible for today's Mw 7.0 earthquake in the Aegean (red star). GPS vectors show motion relative to Anatolia plate. NW Turkey moves N, SW Turkey moves S, so western Turkey stretches N-S. Graph shows how W Turkey opens up like spreading the fingers of a hand pic.twitter.com/JpWklc7YZY

— Edwin Nissen (@faulty_data) October 30, 2020

🌊🇬🇷 Vathí es otra localidad al norte de la isla de #Samos que también registró los efectos del tsunami, inundando las zonas más baja de la ciudad. Se observan estragos menores en el registro.

Vídeo: @atta_fareid pic.twitter.com/CnZzN6c48l

— EarthQuakesTime (@EarthQuakesTime) October 30, 2020

More @NERC_COMET LiCSAR results for yesterday's Aegean earthquake, including filtered/unwrapped interferograms and kmz files for viewing in google earth: https://t.co/TY8ijrUoml
Unwrapped data (below) easier to interpret. Main subsidence (red) is offshore N of Samos. pic.twitter.com/eGGCHL6LXx

— Tim Wright (@timwright_leeds) October 31, 2020

Helpful map showing tectonic setting of today's M7.0 #IzmirEarthquake (yellow dot). The African Plate is subducting under the South Aegean/Anatolian Plate, which is extending as it overrides. The fault that broke today is a "pull-apart" fault (normal fault). #EarthquakeIzmir pic.twitter.com/31Hw4EFWze

— Brian OLSON (@mrbrianolson) October 30, 2020

30 Ekim 2020 / İzmir pic.twitter.com/OYzy0n9hF5

— Son Dakika TV (@sondakikativi) October 30, 2020

GPS velocity & direction of surface monitoring stations in the area of today's M7.0 #IzmirEarthquake showing SSW-directed extension towards the African Plate. The stations near the epicenter are moving ~0.9 – 1.3 inches per year (relative to stable African P.) Data via @UNAVCO pic.twitter.com/iVJJO93Gtl

— Brian OLSON (@mrbrianolson) October 30, 2020

Today's Mw 7.0 #earthquake near the Greek island of Samos ruptured near the Menderes Graben in Western Turkey, a region with a long history of strike-slip and normal faulting. pic.twitter.com/9FiOreCK2R

— Sylvain Barbot (@quakephysics) October 30, 2020

#EarthquakeReport for #Earthquake #Deprem and #Tsunami in the eastern #AegeanSea offshore of #Turkey

poster is now updated with aftershocks from @LastQuake
complicated tectonics
also a plot of tide gage data from the region

report here:https://t.co/vNuRdWw0Gs pic.twitter.com/SnYXwg2n3T

— Jason "Jay" R. Patton (@patton_cascadia) October 31, 2020

AGGIORNAMENTO: Terremoto Mw 7.0 a Nord di Samos (Grecia) del 30 ottobre 2020 https://t.co/pnhYLioLb1

— INGVterremoti (@INGVterremoti) October 30, 2020

It is a bit late in the game, but here is a simulation of yesterdays Turkey/Greece tsunami: pic.twitter.com/HrSnsCl2mA

— Amir Salaree (@amirsalaree) October 31, 2020

My thoughts are with the bereaved, injured and homeless after yesterday's earthquake in Turkey. The size of the quake is shown on these responses from @raspishake seismometers across the globe. The plot is made using @obspy. pic.twitter.com/wrD1Xhfcx8

— Mark Vanstone (@wmvanstone) October 31, 2020

Map of ground displacements calculated from @CopernicusData Sentinel-1 radar (InSAR) by NASA-JPL ARIA project. Western Samos island moved up (blue tones), small area of coast moved down (red) due to M7.0 earthquake yesterday. Other areas affected by atmosphere. pic.twitter.com/26rFem82YN

— Eric Fielding (@EricFielding) October 31, 2020

Jason, also the ~1 days @LastQuake aftershocks distribution seems to be in agreement with the positive stress change related to the @usgs preliminary finite fault model pic.twitter.com/7FNr52Aat2

— Jugurtha Kariche (@JkaricheKariche) October 31, 2020

The red curve below represents the intensity (i.e. shaking and damage level) vs epicentral distance for yesterday M7 #Izmir #Samos #earthquake #deprem. The blue dots are individual felt reports shared by eyewitnesses via LastQuake app.
1/n pic.twitter.com/cBn4sew2xx

— EMSC (@LastQuake) October 31, 2020

Preliminary teleseismic finite fault model of the 30 Oct Mw 7 Greece #earthquake for both planes. Method= Ji et al. (2002). Here rupture started from the KOERI hypocenter (H=10 km). Rupture moved bilaterally; most of the high slip and its peak located up-dip in the shallow depth. pic.twitter.com/7E4jpwJzvu

— Dimas Sianipar (@SianiparDimas) November 1, 2020

Regional tectonics of the area where the M7.0 Samos #earthquake occurred pic.twitter.com/XaWmKMsrlA

— IRIS Earthquake Sci (@IRIS_EPO) November 2, 2020

A bit of lunchtime #dataviz.
Aftershock sequence of the M7.0 Western Turkey as it stands.
Catalogue: @LastQuake pic.twitter.com/5oUa0fyXpL

— Stephen Hicks 🇪🇺 (@seismo_steve) November 2, 2020

Damage Proxy Map from ARIA shows surface changes that may be due to damage measured with radar images. Maps on NASA Disasters Portal: https://t.co/Q4JA2ezU8R
Data also on ARIA-share: https://t.co/CDz2xn2gFo pic.twitter.com/uu5iYqi6WA

— Advanced Rapid Imaging & Analysis (ARIA) (@aria_hazards) November 2, 2020

The "GEER-069: 2020 #Samos Island (Aegean Sea) #earthquake Report" by @HAEE_ETAM, @DepremVakfi, #TDMD, @EERI_tweets and #GEER has been published and is available online (https://t.co/7pb7V8kSMx) ! pic.twitter.com/zpNehqIrTg

— EQUIDAS (@equidas) January 3, 2021

References:

Basic & General References

• Frisch, W., Meschede, M., Blakey, R., 2011. Plate Tectonics, Springer-Verlag, London, 213 pp.
• Hayes, G., 2018, Slab2 – A Comprehensive Subduction Zone Geometry Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PV6JNV.
• Holt, W. E., C. Kreemer, A. J. Haines, L. Estey, C. Meertens, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2005), Project helps constrain continental dynamics and seismic hazards, Eos Trans. AGU, 86(41), 383–387, , https://doi.org/10.1029/2005EO410002. /li>
• Jessee, M.A.N., Hamburger, M. W., Allstadt, K., Wald, D. J., Robeson, S. M., Tanyas, H., et al. (2018). A global empirical model for near-real-time assessment of seismically induced landslides. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 123, 1835–1859. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JF004494
• Kreemer, C., J. Haines, W. Holt, G. Blewitt, and D. Lavallee (2000), On the determination of a global strain rate model, Geophys. J. Int., 52(10), 765–770.
• Kreemer, C., W. E. Holt, and A. J. Haines (2003), An integrated global model of present-day plate motions and plate boundary deformation, Geophys. J. Int., 154(1), 8–34, , https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01917.x.
• Kreemer, C., G. Blewitt, E.C. Klein, 2014. A geodetic plate motion and Global Strain Rate Model in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, v. 15, p. 3849-3889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GC005407.
• Meyer, B., Saltus, R., Chulliat, a., 2017. EMAG2: Earth Magnetic Anomaly Grid (2-arc-minute resolution) Version 3. National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA. Model. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5H70CVX
• Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C. and Roest, W.R., 2008, Age spreading rates and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust in Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9, Q04006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001743
• Pagani,M. , J. Garcia-Pelaez, R. Gee, K. Johnson, V. Poggi, R. Styron, G. Weatherill, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, L. Danciu, D. Monelli (2018). Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Hazard Map (version 2018.1 – December 2018), DOI: 10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAP-2018.1
• Silva, V ., D Amo-Oduro, A Calderon, J Dabbeek, V Despotaki, L Martins, A Rao, M Simionato, D Viganò, C Yepes, A Acevedo, N Horspool, H Crowley, K Jaiswal, M Journeay, M Pittore, 2018. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Seismic Risk Map (version 2018.1). https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM-GLOBAL-SEISMIC-RISK-MAP-2018.1
• Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., 2017, An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107, p 1365-1385, https://doi.org/0.1785/0120160198

Specific References

• Basili R., G. Valensise, P. Vannoli, P. Burrato, U. Fracassi, S. Mariano, M.M. Tiberti, E. Boschi (2008), The Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), version 3: summarizing 20 years of research on Italy’s earthquake geology, Tectonophysics, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2007.04.014
• Brun, J.-P., Sokoutis, D., 2012. 45 m.y. of Aegean crust and mantle flow driven by trench retreat. Geol. Soc. Am., v. 38, p. 815–818.
• Caputo, R., Chatzipetros, A., Pavlides, S., and Sboras, S., 2012. The Greek Database of Seismogenic Sources (GreDaSS): state-of-the-art for northern Greece in Annals of Geophysics, v. 55, no. 5, doi: 10.4401/ag-5168
• Dilek, Y., 2006. Collision tectonics of the Mediterranean region: Causes and consequences in Dilek, Y., and Pavlides, S., eds., Postcollisional tectonics and magmatism in the Mediterranean region and Asia: Geological Society of America Special Paper 409, p. 1–13
• Dilek, Y. and Sandvol, E., 2006. Collision tectonics of the Mediterranean region: Causes and consequences in Dilek, Y., and Pavlides, S., eds., Postcollisional tectonics and magmatism in the Mediterranean region and Asia: Geological Society of America Special Paper 409, p. 1–13
• DISS Working Group (2015). Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), Version 3.2.0: A compilation of potential sources for earthquakes larger than M 5.5 in Italy and surrounding areas. http://diss.rm.ingv.it/diss/, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia; DOI:10.6092/INGV.IT-DISS3.2.0.
• Emre, T. and Sozbilir, H., 2007. Tectonic Evolution of the Kiraz Basin, Küçük Menderes Graben: Evidence for Compression/Uplift-related Basin Formation Overprinted by Extensional Tectonics in West Anatolia in Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 106, p. 441-470
• Ersoy, E.Y., Cemen, I., Helvaci, C., and Billor, Z., 2014. Tectono-stratigraphy of the Neogene basins in Western Turkey: Implications for tectonic evolution of the Aegean Extended Region in Tectonophysics v. 635, p. 33-58.
• Jolivet, L., et al., 2013. Aegean tectonics: Strain localisation, slab tearing and trench retreat in Tectonophysics, v. 597-598, p. 1-33
• Kaya, A., 2015. The effects of extensional structures on the heat transport mechanism: An example from the Ortakçı geothermal field (Büyük Menderes Graben, SW Turkey) in Journal oF african Easth Sciences, v. 108, p. 74-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2015.05.002
• Kokkalas, S., et al., 2006. Postcollisional contractional and extensional deformation in the Aegean region in GSA Special Papers, v. 409, p. 97-123.
• Kurt, H., Demirbag, E., and Kuscu, I., 1999. Investigation of the submarine active tectonism in the Gulf of Gokova, southwest Anatolia–southeast Aegean Sea, by multi-channel seismic reflection data in Tectonophysics, v. 305, p. 477-496
• Ocakoglu, N., DEmirbag, E.,. and Kuscu, I., 2005. Neotectonic structures in I˙zmir Gulf and surrounding regions (western Turkey): Evidences of strike-slip faulting with compression in the Aegean extensional regime in Marine Geology, v. 219, p. 155-171, doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2005.06.004
• Papazachos, B.C., Papadimitrious, E.E., Kiratzi, A.A., Papazachos, C.B., and Louvari, E.k., 1998. Fault Plane Solutions in the Aegean Sea and the Surrounding Area and their Tectonic Implication, in Bollettino Di Geofisica Terorica Ed Applicata, v. 39, no. 3, p. 199-218.
• Pérouse, E., N. Chamot-Rooke, A. Rabaute, P. Briole, F. Jouanne, I. Georgiev, and D. Dimitrov, 2012. Bridging onshore and offshore present-day kinematics of central and eastern Mediterranean: Implications for crustal dynamics and mantle flow, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 13, Q09013, doi:10.1029/2012GC004289.
• Rojay, B., Toprak, V., Demirci, C., and Süzen, L., 2005. Plio-Quaternary evolution of the Küçük Menderes Graben Southwestern Anatolia, Turkey in Geodinamica Acta, v. 18, no. 3-4, p. 317-331
• Taymaz, T., Yilmaz, Y., and Dilek, Y., 2007. The geodynamics of the Aegean and Anatolia: introduction in Geological Society Special Publications, v. 291, p. 1-16.
• Wouldloper, 2009. Tectonic map of southern Europe and the Middle East, showing tectonic structures of the western Alpide mountain belt. Only Alpine (tertiary) structures are shown.

Return to the Earthquake Reports page.

• Sorted by Magnitude
• Sorted by Year
• Sorted by Day of the Year
• Sorted By Region