Abstract
Changes in stream discharge after earthquakes are among the most interesting hydrologic responses because they are visible at Earth’s surface and can be dramatic. Here we focus on changes that persist for extended periods but have no obvious source. Such increases have been documented for a long time but their origins are still under debate. We first review some general characteristics of streamflow responses to earthquakes; we then discuss several mechanisms that have been proposed to explain these responses and the source of the extra water. The different hypotheses imply different crustal processes and different water–rock interactions during the earthquake cycle. In most instances, these hypotheses are under-constrained. We suggest that multiple mechanisms may be activated by an earthquake.
The earth is shaken in various ways, and wonderful effects are produced; … sometimes great masses of earth are heaped up, and rivers forced out, sometimes even flame and hot springs, and at others the course of rivers is turned. (Pliny the Elder, Natural History, Chap. 82)
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
7.1 Introduction
It has been known for millennia that earthquakes can induce a variety of hydrological responses. The introductory quotation from Pliny (ca. AD 77–79) describes new flows that appeared after earthquakes almost 2000 years ago. Other examples include the damming of valleys by landslides and rockfalls to form lakes and decrease downstream discharge, creation of waterfalls by the earthquake faulting, and increases of discharge in regions of high relief caused by the avalanche of large quantities of snow to lower elevations that increases the supply of melt water. In addition, changes in stream discharge after earthquakes are among the most interesting hydrologic responses partly because they can be directly observed and may be large enough to be visually compelling. Fig. 7.1 shows the destruction of the famed waterfall in Jiuzhaigou, western China, after the 2017 Mw7.0 Jiuzhaigou earthquake, which recovered a few months later.
Such changes only redistribute the surface discharge budget, with excess and deficit flows compensating each other. More interesting and less well understood is a type of discharge change that follows earthquakes and persists for an extended period (commonly several weeks to months) but has no obvious source. Such increases of streamflow are more than curiosities because understanding their origin can provide insight into the interactions between hydrogeologic and tectonic processes at spatial and temporal scales that are otherwise difficult to study. These changes have been quantitatively documented for a long time. For example, extensive networks of stream gauges in the western United States were established by the US Geological Survey (USGS) in the early twentieth century, and long and continuous gauging measurements have been collected. Such USGS data, along with measurements made globally, record streamflow changes following earthquakes. In the following sections, we first discuss some general characteristics of streamflow responses to earthquakes that have a subsurface origin. We then discuss several mechanisms that have been proposed to explain these responses and the source of the extra water. Following this, we discuss the available observational constraints on these hypotheses and how different models perform when tested against constraints. Finally, we discuss the occurrence of streamflow responses in special geologic settings, such as that in geothermal areas.
7.2 Observations
7.2.1 Measurement with Flow Meter and Tape
Most creeks are too small to have a permanent stream gauge installed to measure their discharge. The discharge of these creeks is more often determined manually by using measuring tapes and flow-meters (Fig. 7.2). The cross-section of the creek is subdivided into several subsections and the discharge across each subsection is determined by measuring its average depth and the depth averaged flow velocity (e.g., Fetter 2001). The discharge across each subsection is then calculated; the total discharge of the stream is then the sum of the discharges across all the sub-sections.
After the 2014 Mw6.0 South Napa earthquake, which occurred during a prolonged drought in California when most creeks in central California were nearly dry, many creeks within about 50 km of the epicenter (Fig. 7.3a) showed increased discharge by a factor of more than an order of magnitude (Fig. 7.3b, d, e). Except Sonoma Creek where discharge was measured automatically by a USGS stream gauge (Fig. 7.3b), the discharge in all the other creeks (Fig. 7.3d, e) was measured manually (Wang and Manga 2015).
7.2.2 Measurement with Stream Gauges
Many streams with appreciable discharge are monitored with stream gauges. For example, within the USA, at stream gauges maintained by the US Geological Survey, the elevation of the water surface (stage) at a given location is monitored and converted to discharge using a stage-discharge rating curve constructed for that section (e.g., Fetter 2001). The data are collected at 15-min interval and relayed to USGS offices via satellite and are available for viewing within minutes of arrival.
As far as can be determined from the stream-gauge records (e.g., Fig. 7.3b), the onset of streamflow changes can be coseismic. The change can, however, continue for a few days or weeks to reach a maximum, and then gradually declines to reach the pre-earthquake level after several months. Also noticeable in Fig. 7.3 are the sudden increases in streamflow in response to precipitation. Precipitation can easily obscure the earthquake-induced streamflow response when it occurs at the time of an earthquake and makes the analysis of the latter difficult or impossible.
The majority of coseismic streamflow responses documented this way show increased discharge (e.g., Rojstaczer and Wolf 1992; Muir-Wood and King 1993; Rojstaczer et al. 1995; Sato et al. 2000; Montgomery et al. 2003; Wang et al. 2004a; Wang and Manga 2015; Mohr et al. 2015, 2017). But coseismic decrease of stream discharge has also been reported. An interesting example is the response of the Shira River to the 2016 Mw7.0 Kumamoto earthquake in Japan, documented by three stream gauges (see Fig. 7.4a for gauge locations; Hosono et al. 2019). The uppermost gauge, Gauge A (Fig. 7.4b), documented a coseismic increase of stream discharge, which was followed by a second larger increase ~10 h later, while the lower Gauges B and C (Fig. c and d) both showed coseismic decreases of discharge, followed by large increases ~10 h later. Ichiyanagi et al. (2020) estimated from these records that an amount of approximately 900,000 \({\mathrm{m}}^{3}\) of river water was lost between Gauge A and Gauge C in a 12-h period, consistent with the estimate of Hosono et al. (2019) from the change of groundwater level in the area (Chap. 6).
Koizumi et al. (2019) studied the stream discharge in central Kyushu at eight monitored stations (Fig. 7.5a) before and immediately after the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. They showed that, while some rivers exhibited coseismic increase of discharge (Fig. 7.5b), most increases occurred during heavy rainfall that can obscure a coseismic increase.
7.3 Proposed Mechanisms
In the absence of recent precipitation or snowmelt, an increase in stream discharge implies either an increase of the hydraulic gradient created by a new source, or an increase of the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer along the flow path, or both, see Eq. (2.3). Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the changes in streamflow following earthquakes, which may be generally separated into ‘new source’ and the ‘enhanced conductivity’ categories. Mechanisms involving new sources include: (1) the expulsion of deep crustal fluids resulting from coseismic elastic strain (e.g., Muir-Wood and King 1993), (2) coseimic consolidation and liquefaction of shallow sediments (Wang et al. 2001; Manga et al. 2003), (3) coseismic release of water from mountains (Fleeger et al. 1999; Wang et al. 2004a), and (4) shaking water out of unsaturated soil (Mohr et al. 2015). Mechanisms involving enhanced hydraulic conductivity: (1) the enhancement of the horizontal permeability (Rojstaczer et al. 1995), and (2) the enhancement of the vertical permeability (Wang et al. 2004a). Differences between these different hypotheses are nontrivial because they imply different hydrologic processes during and after earthquakes, and have implications for the nature of groundwater flow paths. In the following we summarize the basic elements of the hypotheses and discuss some implications and problems of each. We then evaluate the proposed hypotheses with the existing data.
7.3.1 Static Elastic Strain
Muir-Wood and King (1993) applied the coseismic elastic strain model proposed by Wakita (1975) to explain the increased stream discharge after the 1959 M7.5 Hebgen Lake earthquake and the 1983 M7.3 Borah Peak earthquake. They argued that changes in the static elastic strain in the crust produced by earthquake faulting cause rocks to dilate or contract and thus saturated cracks in rocks to open or close, resulting in a decrease or increase in the groundwater discharge into streams (Fig. 7.6).
7.3.2 Consolidation and Liquefaction
Consolidation of loose, saturated sediments may expel pore water in a ‘drained’ process if sufficient time is available (Sect. 3.3; Fig. 3.5). During an earthquake, the amount of time available is too short for the pore water to drain; thus, the process is ‘undrained’ (Sect. 3.4). As numerous field observations and laboratory experiments have shown (Sect. 11.2), undrained consolidation of saturated loose sediments causes pore pressure to increase and eventually the sediments can liquefy. Wang et al. (2001) suggested that the coseismic undrained consolidation of the loose sediments on the Choshui River flood plain during the Chi-Chi earthquake caused the coseismic increase of water level (Fig. 6.2a). Manga et al. (2003) suggested that coseismic liquefaction of loose sediments on floodplains may provide the water for the increases in stream discharge following earthquakes. The occurrence of liquefaction in areas that experienced increased stream flow is suggestive, but direct evidence that associates liquefaction to the increased discharge has not been found (Montgomery and Manga 2003).
7.3.3 Water Released from Mountains
Within hours after the 1998 M5.2 Pymatuning earthquake in northwestern Pennsylvania, local residents reported that many wells on a local ridge becoming dry, while other wells in the valleys started to flow. Fleeger et al. (1999) reported the observed changes in groundwater level and suggested that the earthquake increased the vertical hydraulic conductivity of shales beneath the ridge, allowing groundwater to drain from the hilltops. They also used numerical modeling to show that an increase of the vertical permeability by 10–60 times from the pre-seismic values would be needed to reproduce the earthquake effects on groundwater beneath the ridge (Fig. 7.7).
After the 1999 Mw7.6 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, several stream systems showed coseismic increases in stream discharge, many wells in the foothills above the thrust fault experienced a significant decline in water level, and a tunnel beneath the foothills experienced sudden downpours right after the earthquake (Lin 2000; Yan 2001). Field mapping after the Chi-Chi earthquake also showed numerous new fractures in the hanging wall of the thrust fault (Angelier et al. 2000; Lee et al. 2000, 2002). Wang et al. (2004a) attributed these hydrologic events to the coseismic release of groundwater from mountains through subvertical fractures, which recharges aquifers in the valley, that in turn recharge the local streams. They further provided an analytical model of vertical recharge by groundwater from mountains to simulate the observed changes (Fig. 7.11). More discussion of this model is provided in Sect. 7.4.2.
After the 2016 Mw7.0 Kumamoto earthquake in Japan, several authors (e.g., Hosono et al. 2019; Ichiyanagi et al. 2020; Kagabu et al. 2020) showed that their data are consistent with the model of coseismic release of groundwater from the nearby caldera rim mountains.
7.3.4 Water Released from Unsaturated Soils
Following the 2010 M8.8 Maule earthquake, Mohr et al. (2015) reported increased streamflow in the Chilean coastal range (Fig. 7.8) and proposed that water was released from unsaturated soils. In this model the aquifer is recharged by the coseismically released water from the unsaturated zone. The observed and the simulated discharge, subjected to evapotranspiration, show good agreement (Fig. 7.8).
Mohr et al. (2015) estimated that a threshold seismic energy density of \({10}^{2}\) J/\({\mathrm{m}}^{3}\) is required, which is three orders of magnitude greater than the threshold seismic energy density to initiate undrained consolidation (see Sect. 7.4.6). Thus, the mechanism of releasing pore water from the unsaturated zone may be significant only in the near field.
7.3.5 Enhanced Permeability
Following the 1989 M6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake in central California, sudden increases of stream discharge occurred in nearby drainage basins. Rojstaczer and Wolf (1992) and Rojstaczer et al. (1995) proposed that the increased stream discharge was due to coseismic enhancement of the hydraulic diffusivity of the aquifer, with flow governed by
where h is the hydraulic head, \(D\) is the horizontal hydraulic diffusivity of the aquifer, x is the horizontal position, L is the length of the aquifer, and t is time. By using this equation, Rojstaczer et al. (1995) has assumed the horizontal diffusivity and its change to explain the increase of stream discharge.
Similar models were applied to the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan to explain observed hydrological changes (Tokunaga 1999; Sato et al. 2000). The model of enhanced permeability was also invoked to explain the increased electrical conductivity of water discharged after an earthquake (Charmoille et al. 2005) and to explain the coseismic increases of phase shifts in the water-level response to tidal strain in southern California (Elkhoury et al. 2006).
7.3.6 Enhanced Vertical Permeability
A lively debate ensued about the enhanced permeability model after the finding of Manga (2001) that no significant change of the baseflow recession occurred after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and other earthquakes. We discuss this finding after a brief introduction to the concept of baseflow recession. The discharge of streams following recharge, known as baseflow recession, often shows an approximately linear relationship between the logarithm of the stream discharge (Q) and time, i.e.,
where a and c are the empirical constants for the linear fit, and t is the time since recharge. A minus sign is placed in front of c, known as the baseflow recession constant, so that c itself is positive; its inverse, i.e., τ ≡ 1/c, is the characteristic time of the stream response to the recharge. As shown in Sect. 7.4.2, the recession constant (c) is related to the hydraulic diffusivity (D) and the characteristic length of the aquifer (L) by
Manga (2001) analyzed the hydrographs of a number of streams, including some that responded to the 1989 Mw6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake (Fig. 7.9a). Figure 7.9b plots the recession constant c determined from the hydrographs as a function of time; no significant change in baseflow recession was found before and after the earthquake, even though discharge increased by an order of magnitude after the earthquake. Given that the length of the aquifer is not likely to change during an earthquake and the similarity in the recession constants before and after the earthquake, the finding of no significant change in baseflow recession after the earthquake (Manga 2001) implies that the horizontal diffusivity was not significantly enhanced by the earthquake, in contradiction to the conclusion of Rojstaczer et al. (1995).
Similar observations were made later. For example, after the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake (Wang et al. 2004a), the hydrograph of a stream in the foothills of western central Taiwan (gauge H032, see Fig. 7.13 for location) shows nearly identical recession as that before the earthquake (Fig. 7.10).
After the 2010 Mw8.8 Maule earthquake in Chile, Mohr et al. (2017) analyzed the baseflow recession of eighty streams that experienced increased discharge. Their result (Fig. 7.11) again showed no clear change of baseflow recession after the earthquake and thus does not support the hypothesis of a seismic enhanced horizontal permeability as the mechanism for the observed streamflow anomalies.
Wang et al. (2004a) resolved this apparent dilemma by invoking hydraulic anisotropy; they suggested that the Chi-Chi earthquake enhanced the vertical permeability in the nearby mountains that allowed coseismic release of water to recharge the aquifer (Sect. 7.3.1) without significantly affecting the baseflow recession, since the latter is controlled by the horizontal permeability (Eq. 7.3). Based on this conceptual model Wang et al. (2004a) proposed an analytical model (Sect. 7.4.2) and used it to simulate the post-seismic stream discharge in Taiwan after the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake (e.g., Fig. 7.15). This model has since been applied to simulate the increased streamflow after other earthquakes, such as that after the 2014 South Napa earthquake in central California (Wang and Manga 2015) and that after the 2016 M5.8 Pawnee earthquake in Oklahoma (Manga et al. 2016). The mechanism of enhanced vertical permeability also received direct support from the study of water level changes and tidal response after the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in several clustered wells on an alluvial fan near the epicenter (Wang 2007; Wang et al. 2016).
7.4 Model Constraints
7.4.1 Constraints from Earthquake Mechanism
Manga et al. (2003) took advantage of the long record of stream discharge data in the United States collected by the USGS, together with the relatively high rate of seismicity in southern California, to characterize the response of Sespe Creek, California, to several earthquakes (streamflow records go back to 1928). Figure 7.12 shows the location of the stream together with the epicenters and the focal mechanisms of several large earthquakes. Manga et al. (2003) found that the streamflow in the Sespe Creek basin always increased regardless of whether the earthquake-induced static strain in the basin was contraction or expansion. This finding rules out the static strain hypothesis as a viable mechanism for the coseismic increases of streamflow, at least for this basin.
7.4.2 Constraints from Recession Analysis
The post-seismic baseflow recession of a stream not only contains information about the hydraulic properties of the aquifers immediately after an earthquake, but can also be used to estimate the amount of extra water released by an earthquake. In this section we show, with an example, how these parameters may be estimated from streamflow data.
Seventeen stream gauges were installed on three stream systems near the Chi-Chi earthquake epicenter (Fig. 7.13). During and after the Chi-Chi earthquake, many of these gauges registered large increases in stream discharge (Water Resource Bureau 2000; Wang et al. 2004a) and are used here as examples to illustrate how to analyze the postseismic recession and to estimate of the amount of streamflow increase.
The values for c and τ for a number of streams are obtained by fitting the stream hydrographs with Eq. 7.2. The results are listed in Table 7.1. Although these values are entirely empirical, they are closely related to the geometry and the physical properties of the aquifer that recharges the stream.
Since the aquifers are approximately horizontal with a length scale much greater than their thickness, Wang et al. (2004a) approximated them with a one-dimensional aquifer that extends from a local water divide (at x = 0) to a local discharge (at x = L), as shown in Fig. 7.14b. High-angle fractures formed during the earthquake facilitate the coseismic release of water from mountains (Fig. 7.14a, d) to recharge the aquifer below, which in turn recharges the local stream.
The baseflow recession in this case is determined by the time-dependent discharge of the aquifer at x = L. This may be determined by solving the groundwater flow equation under appropriate boundary and initial conditions,
where \({S}_{s}\) and K are, respectively, the specific storage and the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer, and are related to D (diffusivity) in Eq. 7.1 by D = K/\({S}_{s}\). Wang et al. (2004a) assumed that the enhanced vertical permeability is high such that the rate of vertical recharge to the aquifer per unit volume, i.e., \(A\left(x,t\right)\) in Eq. 7.3, occurs coseismically, i.e., \(A\left(x,t\right)\) = Qo\(\left(x\right)\) at t = 0. Even though this model is highly simplified, several studies (e.g., Roeloffs 1998; Manga 2001; Manga et al. 2003, 2016; Brodsky et al. 2003; Wang et al. 2004a; Wang and Manga 2015) have demonstrated that such approximations are useful for characterizing the catchment-scale response of hydrological systems to earthquakes. Equation (7.4) is also the linearized form of the differential equation that governs the groundwater level in unconfined aquifers, but with Ss replaced by Sy/b where Sy is the specific yield and b the saturated thickness of the unconfined aquifer. Because these equations are linear, the head change due to the earthquake may be superimposed on the background hydraulic head.
For boundary conditions, we adopt a no-flow boundary condition at x = 0 (i.e., a local water divide) and h = 0 at x = L (i.e., a local discharge to a stream) (Fig. 7.14b). Taking the background head as the reference value, we have the initial condition h = 0 at t = 0. The solution for Eq. (7.4) under these boundary conditions was derived in Sect. 6.4.4 and is given below,
where Qo(x) is the coseismic vertical recharge distribution at t = 0. Differentiating (6.13) with respect to t we have
For sufficiently long times after the earthquake, Eqs. (6.13) and (7.5) are dominated by the first term (n = 1) of the series expansion, i.e.,
and
Dividing (7.7) by (7.6) we have Eq. (7.8), i.e.,
This model of coseismic recharge of streams by groundwater released from mountains has been used to simulate the increased stream discharge after the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan (Fig. 7.15) and the 2014 South Napa earthquake in California (Fig. 7.3b, e).
The model also makes it possible to compute the amount of excess discharge in a stream after an earthquake. To make this estimate, Wang et al. (2004a) simplified the function \(Q_{o} \left( x \right)\) further to that shown in Fig. 7.14d, i.e., \(Q_{o} \left( x \right) = Q_{o}\) for \(0 \le x \le L^{\prime}\), otherwise \(Q_{o} \left( x \right) = 0\). Equation (7.6) then reduces to
Differentiating (7.9) with respect to x and evaluating the derivative at the stream (i.e., x = L) we have the excess discharge
where A is the cross-sectional area of the aquifer. Representing the amount of recharge to the aquifer by \(Q_{o} V\) where \(V = AL^{\prime}\) and using \(D = K/S_{s}\), we may rewrite (7.9) as
Assuming that the coseismic recharge is eventually discharged as excess stream flow, the amount of excess discharge may then be obtained from the amount of coseismic recharge, i.e., \(VQ_{o}\) in (7.11). Notice that the parameter \(D/L^{2}\) in the above equation may be calculated from the post-seismic baseflow recession constant listed in Table 7.1. We may then use Eq. (7.11) to fit the streamflow data, with \(VQ_{o}\) and the ratio L′/L being the unknown fitting parameters. Given \(D/L^{2}\) = 2.4 × \(10^{ - 7} s^{ - 1}\) (Table 7.1) for the post-seismic discharge at stream gauge H032 (see Fig. 7.13 for location), an excellent fit to the data is obtained with \(VQ_{o} = 0.14 \; {\text{km}}^{3}\) and L′/L = 0.8. The latter is consistent with the fact that the stream gauge H032 is located in the foothills where the flood plain is narrow and the station is close to the water divide (i.e., x = 0). Using the values of c or τ from Table 7.1 and fitting the stream flow data, Wang et al. (2004a) obtained the amount of excess flow at each stream gauge, as listed in Table 7.2. Summing the excess discharges in the two stream systems (H025 and H058), they estimated a total excess discharge of 0.7–0.8 \({\text{km}}^{3}\) from the west-central Taiwan foothills after the Chi-Chi earthquake.
Figure 7.16 shows another case where Sespe Creek, southern California, responded to the 1952 M7.5 Kern County earthquake located 63 km away from the center of the drainage basin. Again, the vertical recharge model Eq. (7.11) predicts an excess discharge that fits the observed postseismic discharge well (baseflow has been added back to the calculated excess discharge). Here the peak discharge occurs 9–10 days after the earthquake, even though the discharge began to increase coseismically. The difference in rise time from that in Fig. 7.15 (~2 days) reflects the differences in the distance between the stream gauge and the location of the coseismic recharge as well as the aquifer diffusivity.
The 2010 M8.8 Maule earthquake in Chile triggered regional streamflow responses across Chile’s diverse topographic and hydro-climatic gradients. Mohr et al. (2017) analyzed the stream response and reported that out of 85 responding streams, 78 showed increased flow. Using the methods discussed in this section, they estimated the total amount of excess discharge to be ~1.1 \({\text{km}}^{3}\), which is the largest reported to date. Other estimates include 0.7–0.8 \({\text{km}}^{3}\) after the 1999 M7.5 Chi-Chi earthquake (Wang et al. 2004a), 0.5 \({\text{km}}^{3}\) after the 1959 M7.5 Hebgen Lake earthquake (Muir-Wood and King 1993), 0.3 \({\text{km}}^{3}\) after the 1983 M7.3 Borah Peak earthquake (Muir-Wood and King 1993), 0.01 \({\text{km}}^{3}\) after the 1989 M6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake (Rojstaczer et al. 1995), and \(10^{6}\) \({\text{m}}^{3}\) after the 2014 M6.0 South Napa earthquake (Wang and Manga 2015).
7.4.3 Constraints From Multiple Stream Gauges
The extensive network of stream gauges near the epicenter of the Chi-Chi earthquake (Fig. 7.13) provides another constraint to test suggested hypotheses. Among the three gauged stream systems, two (Choshui Stream and the Wushi Stream) have many tributaries in the mountains, but the third (Peikang Stream) originates on the western edge of the frontal thrust (Fig. 7.13) and does not have any mountain tributaries.
After the Chi-Chi earthquake, all the tributaries in the mountains showed large postseismic streamflow increases (Table 7.2). On the alluvial fan, the Choshui Stream and the Wushi Stream, both with tributaries in the mountains, also showed large increases in streamflow, but comparison between the excess discharge documented at Gauge H057 and H058 (Table 7.2) shows that the discharge increase in the proximal area (H057) of the Choshui alluvial fan was the same as that in the distal area (H058) of the fan, suggesting that there was relatively little contribution of water from undrained consolidation or liquefaction of the sediments on the fan. In contrast, the Peikang Stream system, which does not have tributaries in the mountainous area, did not show any noticeable postseismic streamflow increases. We thus conclude that the excess discharge after the Chi-Chi earthquake originated mostly from the mountains where groundwater stored at high elevations was released by earthquake-enhanced vertical permeability, and any contribution from coseismic consolidation and liquefaction in the floodplain (alluvial fan) must have been volumetrically insignificant.
7.4.4 Constraints From the Threshold Seismic Energy
As for the case of coseismic change of groundwater level, most of the coseismic changes of stream discharge have been documented together with the earthquake magnitude and the epicentral distances. Figure 7.17 shows a compilation of the occurrences of coseismic change of stream discharge, plotted on a distance versus magnitude diagram. Also plotted as a metric are lines of constant seismic energy density (Eq. 6.10). Figure 7.17 shows that the seismic energy density of 0.1 J/\({\text{m}}^{3}\), which concurs with the liquefaction limit (Chap. 8), also delimits the occurrence of coseismic changes of stream discharge.
Figure 7.17 shows the relationship between earthquake magnitude and distance between the epicenter and the center of the gauged basin for streams that responded to earthquakes. Also shown for reference is the liquefaction limit suggested by Papadopoulos and Lefkopoulos (1993), i.e., the maximum distance over which liquefaction was then reported. The coincidence of the liquefaction limit suggested by Papadopoulos and Lefkopoulos (1993) and the limit for the occurrence of coseismic streamflow increase (Fig. 7.17) is suggestive, though the empirical bound proposed by Papadopoulos and Lefkopoulos (1993) has been outdated by more recent compilation of liquefaction occurrences (Fig. 11.8). Furthermore, Montgomery et al. (2003) searched for a field association between liquefaction and increased streamflow after the 2001 M6.8 Nisqually, WA, earthquake, but found none.
7.4.5 Constraints from Laboratory Experiment
As discussed in Sect. 6.4.1, Breen et al. (2020) carried out laboratory experiments to test the models of consolidation and of water released from unsaturated soils for the coseismic increase in groundwater level and stream discharge. The result of the experiments showed that both mechanisms can explain the observation. These mechanisms are particularly useful to explain an increase in discharge in flat areas away from mountains, such as that after the 2016 Mw5.8 Pawnee earthquake, Oklahoma (Manga et al. 2016), where no other sources for the extra water are apparent. This point serves as a reminder that earthquakes may activate multiple mechanisms, but often only the dominant mechanism is revealed by observation and analysis. Thus, the mechanisms of undrained consolidation and releasing water from the vadose zone may become important in flat areas like Oklahoma where other competing mechanisms are absent.
7.4.6 Constraints from Chemical Composition of the Excess Flow
Rojstaczer et al. (1995) argued that, for the elastic strain model of Muir-Wood and King (1993) to explain the increased discharge after earthquakes, a large portion of the deep crust needs to be involved in order to account for the extra water in the increased streamflow. The process would require not only a characteristic time far exceeding that observed in the earthquake-induced stream discharge but also would impart a distinct chemical signature in the discharged water from the deep crust. Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, Rojstaczer and Wolf (1992) collected water samples from streams near the epicenter and analyzed their chemical composition. They found that, while the stream chemistry showed a marked post-seismic increase in overall ionic strength, the overall proportions of the major ions were nearly the same as those before the earthquake; they argued that these changes were derived from groundwater released from the surrounding highlands instead of from the deep crust.
The hypothesis may also be constrained from the isotopic composition of the post-seismic increased flows. This is because the isotopic composition of rocks is significantly different from that of meteoric water; deep water–rock reactions would thus impart a distinct isotopic signature in the released groundwater. This prediction has been contradicted by several studies of the changes in groundwater composition after earthquakes (e.g., Claesson et al. 2004, 2007; Manga and Rowland 2009; Wang and Manga 2015; Hosono et al. 2020). Detailed discussion on this topic, however, is deferred to Chap. 9 where we focus on the earthquake-induced changes of groundwater composition.
7.5 Streamflow Changes in Hydrothermal Areas
Within 15Â min. of the 22Â December 2003 M6.5 San Simeon earthquake in central California, two stream gauges registered increased stream discharge, one along the Salinas River near the town of Paso Robles and the other along the Lopez Creek near the town of Arroyo Grande (Fig. 7.18), both known for their hot springs. As explained next, these streamflow increases can be explained by the coseismic recharge model introduced earlier, but apparently driven by the excess pore pressure in a geothermal reservoir, and are thus entirely different from those discussed earlier which were driven by gravitational potential.
Some background information about the local geology and climate may be required to better understand the different responses of these streams. Active tectonics since the late Tertiary has repeatedly faulted and uplifted the Coast Ranges of California. The climate of the area is semiarid, with most of the annual 250–330 mm precipitation occurring during the winter. A growing population and increased urbanization and agriculture has caused basin-wide decline of the groundwater level during the past several decades. As a result, the streambed of the Salinas River, with a flood plain ∼100 m wide through the Paso Robles Basin, is usually dry except during rainy season, and was dry before the San Simeon earthquake. Drilling at Paso Robles encountered a hydrothermal reservoir at a depth of ∼100 m. On the other hand, no hot springs are known in the nearby valleys of the San Antonio River or the Nacimiento River.
The epicenter of the San Simeon earthquake occurred 11 km NE of the town of San Simeon and 39 km WNW of Paso Robles. Rupture during the earthquake shows a strong ESE directivity (Fig. 7.18). Four new hot springs appeared after the earthquake on the two sides of the Salinas River (Fig. 7.19) near the town of Paso Robles. These new hot springs occurred along a straight line striking WNW, parallel to the earthquake rupture (Fig. 7.19) and crossing the Salinas River ∼1 km upstream of the local stream gauge (Fig. 7.19). The well-head pressure at a hot spring well (Fig. 7.19) in Paso Robles was steady before the earthquake, but decreased from 0.33 to ∼0.2 MPa within 2 days after the earthquake.
Recession analysis of the postseismic stream discharge in the Salinas River and Lopez Creek yields a characteristic time of ~40 min, suggesting that the sources of the extra water were close to the surface. However, there was no surface water source in the Paso Robles Basin and any surface water would have to be supplied from distant mountains, which is contradicted by the short characteristic time from the recession analysis. Thus, as suggested by the appearance of new hot springs in the area (Fig. 7.19), Wang et al. (2004b) proposed that the source for the coseismic increase of discharge in the two streams was a subsurface hydrothermal reservoir (Fig. 7.20b) that was sealed above by an impermeable layer (Fig. 7.20c). The seal was ruptured by the earthquake (Fig. 7.20d) and the hydrothermal water erupted to the surface to form the new hot springs and to recharge the stream. An ideal test of this hypothesis would have been a chemical analysis of the increased flow. Unfortunately, the duration of the extra discharge was short and precipitation in the area started one day after the earthquake, which made such analysis unattainable. Wang et al. (2004b) supported the conceptual model with a simulation. The excess discharge based on this model may be simulated using Eq. (7.11). The simulated result, shown with the curve in Fig. 7.20a, fits the observed postseismic discharge (triangles and diamonds). The estimated excess discharge after this earthquake ranged from \({10}^{2}\) to \({10}^{3}\) \({\mathrm{m}}^{3}\), orders of magnitude smaller than the examples mentioned in Sect. 7.4.2.
Abrupt increases in streamflow and hot spring discharge after earthquakes were also reported in other hydrothermal areas such as in the Long Valley, California (Sorey and Clark 1981), in the Napa Valley, California (Wang and Manga 2015), and in Japan (Mogi et al. 1989), suggesting that this type of hydrologic response may be common in hydrothermal areas. Such discharge may also cause changes in the temperature and the chemical composition of the streams and hot springs, as reported by Mogi et al. (1989) and Hosono et al. (2018), among others, and are discussed further in Chaps. 8 and 9.
In convergent tectonic regions, large volumes of pore water may be locked in the subducted sediments (Townend 1997) or beneath volcanic areas (Hartmann 2006). Sealing may be enacted partly by the presence of low-permeability mud, partly by precipitation of minerals in fractures and pores, and partly by the prevailing compressional stresses in such tectonic settings (Sibson and Rowland 2003). Earthquakes may rupture the seals and allow pressurized pore water to erupt to the surface and recharge streams. Husen and Kissling (2001) suggest that postseismic changes in the ratio of P- and S-wave velocities above the subducting Nazca Plate reflect fluid migration into the overlying plate following the rupture of permeability barriers. This process may explain the time variations in submarine fluid discharge at convergent margins (Carson and Screaton 1998). Episodes of high discharge are correlated with seismic activity having features similar to tremor and are not correlated with large regional earthquakes (Brown et al. 2005).
7.6 Concluding Remarks
The different hypotheses discussed in this chapter imply different crustal processes and different water–rock interactions during an earthquake cycle. In most instances, these hypotheses are under-constrained. A reasonable approach is to test the different hypotheses against cases in which abundant and accurate data are documented such as the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan and the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake in Japan. We may note that a single explanation need not apply to all cases of coseismic increased streamflow, and that multiple mechanisms may be activated by an earthquake.
References
Angelier J, Chu HT, Lee JC et al (2000) Geologic knowledge and seismic risk mitigation: insight from the Chi-Chi earthquake Chi-Chi earthquake (1999) Taiwan. In: Lo CH, Liao WI (eds) Proceedings of international workshop on annual commemoration of Chi-Chi earthquake, Science Aspect, pp 13–24
Breen S, Zhang Z, Wang CY (2020) Shaking water out of sands: an experimental study. Water Resour Res 56: e2020WR028153Â
Brodsky EE, Roeloffs E, Woodcock D et al (2003) A mechanism for sustained groundwater pressure changes induced by distant earthquakes. J Geophys Res 108(B8):2390. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB002321
Brown KM, Tryon MD, DeShon HR (2005) Correlated transient fluid pulsing and seismic tremor in the Costa Rica subduction zone. Earth Planet Sci Lett 238:189–203
Carson B, Screaton EJ (1998) Fluid flow in accretionary prisms: evidence for focused, time-variable discharge. Rev Geophys 36:329–352
Charmoille A, Fabbri O, Mudry J (2005) Post-seismic permeability change in a shallow fractured aquifer following a ML 5.1 earthquake (Fourbanne karst aquifer, Jura outermost thrust unit, eastern France). Geophys Res Lett 32:L18406. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023859
Claesson L, Skelton A, Graham C, Dietl C, Mörth M, Torssander P, Kockum I (2004) Hydrogeochemical changes before and after a major earthquake. Geology 32:641–644
Claesson L, Skelton A, Graham C et al (2007) The timescale and mechanisms of fault sealing and water-rock interaction after an earthquake. Geofluids 7:427–440
Elkhoury JE, Brodsky EE, Agnew DC (2006) Seismic waves increase permeability. Nature 411:1135–1138
Fetter CW (2001) Applied hydrogeology, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Fleeger GM, Goode DJ, Buckwalter TF et al (1999) Hydrologic effects of the Pymatuning earthquake of September 25, 1998, in northwestern Pennsylvania, US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Reports 99-4170
Hartmann J (2006) Long-term seismotectonic influence on the hydrochemical composition of a spring located at Koryaksky-Volcano, Kamchatka: deduced from aggregated earthquake information. Int J Earth Sci 95:649–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-005-0055-5
Hosono T, Hartmann J, Louvat P et al (2018) Earthquake-induced structural deformations enhance long-term solute fluxes from active volcanic systems. Sci Rep 8:14809. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32735-1
Hosono T, Yamada C, Shibata T et al (2019) Coseismic groundwater drawdown along crustal ruptures during the 2016 Mw 7.0 Kumamoto earthquake. Water Resour Res 55:5891–5903. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024871
Hosono T, Yamada C, Manga M, Wang CY, Tanimizu M (2020) Stable isotopes show that earthquakes enhance permeability and release water from mountains. Nat Commun 11:1–9
Husen S, Kissling E (2001) Postseismic fluid flow after the large subduction earthquake of Antofagasta, Chile. Geology 29:847–850
Ichiyanagi K, Imatsu M, Ide K et al (2020) Effects on fluvial discharges of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes, Japan. J Hydrol 583:124600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124600
Kagabu M, Ide K, Hosono T et al (2020) Describing coseismic groundwater level rise using tank model in volcanic aquifers, Kumamoto, southern Japan. J Hydrol 582:124464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124464
Koizumi N, Minote S, Tanaka T et al (2019) Hydrological changes after the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake, Japan. Earth Planet Space 71:128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-019-1110-y
Lee CT, Kelson KI, Kang KH (2000) Hanging wall deformation and its effect on buildings and structures as learned from the Chelungpu faulting in the 1999 Chi-Chi Taiwan earth-quake. In: Liao WI (ed) Lo CH. Proceedings of international workshop on annual commemoration of Chi-Chi earthquake, Science Aspect, pp 93–104
Lee JC, Chu HT, Angelier J et al (2002) Geometry and structure of northern rupture surface ruptures of the 1999 Mw = 7.6 Chi-Chi Taiwan earthquake: influence from inherited fold belt structures. J Struct Geol 24:173–192
Lin WY (2000) Unstable groundwater supply after the big earthquake, Taiwan. United Daily (in Chinese)
Manga M (2001) Origin of postseismic streamflow changes inferred from baseflow recession and magnitude-distance relation. Geophys Res Lett 28:2133–2136
Manga M, Brodsky EE, Boone M (2003) Response of streamflow to multiple earthquakes and implications for the origin of postseismic discharge changes. Geophys Res Lett 30(5):1214. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016618
Manga M, Rowland JC (2009) Response of alum rock springs to the October 30, 2007 earthquake and implication for increased discharge after earthquakes. Geofluids 9:237–250
Manga M, Wang CY, Shirzaei M (2016) Increased stream discharge after the 3 September 2016 Mw 5.8 Pawnee, Oklahoma earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 43:11588–11594. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071268
Mogi K, Mochizuki H, Kurokawa Y (1989) Temperature changes in an artesian spring at Usami in the Izu Peninsula (Japan) and their relation to earthquakes. Tectonophysics 159:95–108
Mohr CH, Manga M, Wang CY, Kirchner JW, Bronstert A (2015) Shaking water out of soil. Geology 43:207–210. https://doi.org/10.1130/G36261.1
Mohr CH, Manga M, Wang CY, Korup O (2017) Regional changes in streamflow after a megathrust earthquake. Earth Planet Sci Lett 458:418–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.11.013
Montgomery DR, Manga M (2003) Streamflow and water well responses to earthquakes. Science 300:2047–2049
Montgomery DR, Greenberg HM, Smith DT (2003) Streamflow response to the Nisqually earthquake. Earth Planet Sci Lett 209:19–28
Muir-Wood R, King GCP (1993) Hydrological signatures of earthquake strain. J Geophys Res 98:22035–22068
Papadopoulos GA, Lefkopoulos G (1993) Magnitude–distance relations for liquefaction in soil from earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83:925–938
Roeloffs EA (1998) Persistent water level changes in a well near Parkfield, California, due to local and distant earthquakes. J Geophys Res 103:869–889
Rojstaczer S, Wolf S (1992) Permeability changes associated with large earthquakes: an example from Loma Prieta, California, 10/17/89 earthquake. Geology 20:211–214
Rojstaczer S, Wolf S, Michel R (1995) Permeability enhancement in the shallow crust as a cause of earthquake-induced hydrological changes. Nature 373:237–239
Sato T, Sakai R, Furuya K et al (2000) Coseismic spring flow changes associated with the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 27:1219–1222
Sibson RH, Rowland JV (2003) Stress, fluid pressure and structural permeability in seismogenic crust, North Island, New Zealand. Geophys J Int 154:584–594
Sorey ML, Clark MD (1981) Changes in the discharge characteristics of thermal springs and fumaroles in the Long Valley caldera, California, resulting from earthquakes on May 25–27, 1980. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 81–203
Tokunaga T (1999) Modeling of earthquake induced hydrological changes and possible permeability enhancement due to the 17 January 1995 Kobe earthquake, Japan. J Hydrol 223:221–229
Townend J (1997) Subducting a sponge; minimum estimates of the fluid budget of the Hikurangi Margin accretionary prism. Geol Soc NZ Newslett 112:14–16
Wakita H (1975) Water wells as possible indicators of tectonic strain. Science 189:553–555
Wang CY (2007) Liquefaction beyond the near field. Seismo Res Lett 78: 512-517
Wang CY, Cheng LH, Chin CV et al (2001) Coseismic hydrologic response of an alluvial fan to the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake (1999), Taiwan. Geology 29:831–834
Wang CY, Wang CH, Manga M (2004a) Coseismic release of water from mountains: evidence from the 1999 (Mw = 7.5) Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Geology 32:769–772
Wang CY, Manga M, Dreger D (2004b) Streamflow increase due to rupturing of hydrothermal reservoirs: evidence from the 2003 San Simeon earthquake (2003), California, earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 31:L10502. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020124
Wang CY, Manga M (2010) Hydrologic responses to earthquakes and a general metric. Geofluids 10:206–216
Wang CY, Liao X, Wang LP (2016) Large earthquakes create vertical permeability by breaching aquitards. Water Resour Res 52:5923–5937. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR018893
Wang CY, Manga M (2015) New streams and springs after the 2014 Mw 6.0 South Napa earthquake. Nature Communications 6:7597. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8597Water Resource Bureau (2000) Report and analysis of changes in surface and ground water due to the 9/21 Chi-Chi Earthquake: Taipei. Water Resource Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan (in Chinese), 37 p with 4 appendices
Yan HR (2001) Water problems in the Yuanlin Mountains: Changes in groundwater after the Chi-Chi earthquake (1999), Taiwan. Chinese Daily (in Chinese)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
7.1 Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file2 (MOV 227053 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wang, CY., Manga, M. (2021). Stream Flow. In: Water and Earthquakes. Lecture Notes in Earth System Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64308-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64308-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-64307-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-64308-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)