SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 3

Seismicity Parameters of the Westernmost Part of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ)

Burçin Didem Tamtaş(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ-CERRAHPAŞA)0000-0001-7713-5067
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Integrated completeness-controlled seismicity statistics and stress-tensor inversion show that the Saros segment functions as a transform–transtensional linkage corridor rather than a discrete tectonic boundary, refining the seismotectonic framework of the Marmara–Saros–North Aegean transition zone and providing robust parameters for seismic hazard and fault-segmentation analyses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study characterizes seismicity and stress regime in the westernmost part of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ), focusing on the Saros segment, where dextral strike-slip deformation transitions into the transtensional northern Aegean domain.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A December 1917–September 2025 earthquake catalog was compiled and homogenized to local magnitude (ML).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Integrated completeness-controlled seismicity statistics and stress-tensor inversion show that the Saros segment functions as a transform–transtensional linkage corridor rather than a discrete tectonic boundary, refining the seismotectonic framework of the Marmara–Saros–North Aegean transition zone and providing robust parameters for seismic hazard and fault-segmentation analyses.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:North Anatolian Fault Zone · Saros Segment · b-value

Abstract

This study characterizes seismicity and stress regime in the westernmost part of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ), focusing on the Saros segment, where dextral strike-slip deformation transitions into the transtensional northern Aegean domain. Unlike previous regional studies that combine Marmara and broader Aegean datasets or focus on individual rupture sequences, this study isolates a coordinate-bounded transition window to quantify the intrinsic seismic behavior of the terminal NAFZ–North Aegean Trough (NAT) linkage zone within a completeness-controlled framework. A December 1917–September 2025 earthquake catalog was compiled and homogenized to local magnitude (ML). Completeness analysis yields a reference Mc ≈ 3.2, consistent with Gutenberg–Richter statistics. Recurrence and annual probability metrics were evaluated for 1917–2025, 1985–2025, and 2010–2025 to assess temporal stability and completeness-related effects in seismic productivity. Recurrence and frequency–magnitude characteristics of the non-declustered and declustered catalogs were compared to assess aftershock effects on seismic rates. For events with M ≥ Mc, the estimated parameters are b = 0.91 ± 0.05 and a = 5.392 indicate moderate seismic productivity. Focal mechanisms and stress tensor inversion indicate a dominant dextral strike-slip regime with subordinate N–S extension, confirming a transtensional stress field linking the Saros region to the northern Aegean. Integrated completeness-controlled seismicity statistics and stress-tensor inversion show that the Saros segment functions as a transform–transtensional linkage corridor rather than a discrete tectonic boundary, refining the seismotectonic framework of the Marmara–Saros–North Aegean transition zone and providing robust parameters for seismic hazard and fault-segmentation analyses.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tamtaş, B. D. (2026). Seismicity Parameters of the Westernmost Part of the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ). Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 15 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.1869499

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (73)

  1. J. Fraser, J. Pigati, A. Hubert-Ferrari, K. Vanneste, U. Avsar, and S. Altınok, “A 3000-Year Record of Ground-Rupturing Earthquakes along the Central North Anatolian Fault near Lake Ladik, Turkey,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 99, pp. 2681–2703, 2009, doi: 10.1785/0120080024.
  2. A. Barka, “The North Anatolian fault zone,” in Final Meeting of IGCP Project 206 A Worldwide Comparison of the Characteristics of Major Active Faults, Mammoth Lakes, 1989, pp. 164–195.
  3. J. F. Dewey and A. M. C. Şengör, “Aegean and surrounding regions: Complex multiplate and continuum tectonics in a convergent zone,” GSA Bulletin, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 84–92, 1979, doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1979)90 2.0.CO;2.
  4. H. Karabulut et al., “A source study of the 6 July 2003 (Mw 5.7) earthquake sequence in the Gulf of Saros (Northern Aegean Sea): Seismological evidence for the western continuation of the Ganos fault,” Tectonophysics, vol. 412, no. 3, pp. 195–216, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2005.09.009.
  5. C. Yaltırak, “Tectonic evolution of the Marmara Sea and its surroundings,” Mar. Geol., vol. 190, no. 1, pp. 493–529, 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0025-3227(02)00360-2.
  6. M. Nakano, S. Citak, and D. Kalafat, “Focal mechanism determinations of earthquakes along the North Anatolian fault, beneath the Sea of Marmara and the Aegean Sea,” Earth, Planets and Space, vol. 67, no. 1, p. 159, 2015, doi: 10.1186/s40623-015-0330-z.
  7. O. Tatar et al., “Palaeomagnetic evidence for the neotectonic evolution of the Erzincan Basin, North Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey,” J. Geodyn., vol. 65, pp. 244–258, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2012.03.009.
  8. R. S. Stein, J. H. Dieterich, and A. A. Barka, “Role of stress triggering in earthquake migration on the North Anatolian fault,” Phys. Chem. Earth., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 225–230, 1996, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-1946(97)00039-6.
  9. A. Amemoutou, P. Martínez-Garzón, V. Durand, G. Kwiatek, M. Bohnhoff, and G. Dresen, “Spatio-temporal variations of seismic coupling along a transform fault: the western North Anatolian Fault Zone,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 235, no. 2, pp. 1982–1995, 2023, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggad341.
  10. A. Barka et al., “The Surface Rupture and Slip Distribution of the 17 August 1999 Izmit Earthquake (M 7.4), North Anatolian Fault,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 92, pp. 43–60, 2002, doi: 10.1785/0120000841.
  11. A. Pinar, Y. Honkura, and K. Kuge, “Seismic activity triggered by the 1999 Izmit earthquake and its implications for the assessment of future seismic risk,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 146, no. 1, pp. F1–F7, 2001, doi: 10.1046/j.0956-540x.2001.01476.x.
  12. M. Aksoy et al., “Subaqueous fault scarps of the North Anatolian Fault in the Gulf of Saros (NE Aegean); where is the western limit of the 1912 Mürefte-Şarköy earthquake rupture?” Geophys. J. Int., pp. 589–604, 2022, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggab462.
  13. E. Mantovani, M. Viti, C. Tamburelli, D. Babbucci, M. Baglione, and V. D’Intinosante, “Seismicity Patterns in Some Mediterranean Zones After the 1939 Anatolian Earthquake: Insights on Seismic Risk and the Tectonic Setting,” GeoHazards, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 29, doi: 10.3390/geohazards6020029.
  14. L. C. McNeill, A. Mille, T. A. Minshull, J. M. Bull, N. H. Kenyon, and M. Ivanov, “Extension of the North Anatolian Fault into the North Aegean Trough: Evidence for transtension, strain partitioning, and analogues for Sea of Marmara basin models,” Tectonics, vol. 23, no. 2, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2002TC001490.
  15. Ö. Emre et al., “Active fault database of Turkey,” Bull. Earthquake Eng., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 3229–3275, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10518-016-0041-2.
  16. P. Wessel et al., “The Generic Mapping Tools Version 6,” Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 5556–5564, 2019, doi: 10.1029/2019GC008515.
  17. I. Lazos, S. Sboras, and C. Pikridas, “Tectonic Geodesy Synthesis and Review of the North Aegean Region, Based on the Strain Patterns of the North Aegean Sea, Strymon Basin and Thessalian Basin Case Studies,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 17, p. 9943, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/17/9943.
  18. S. Barbot and J. R. Weiss, “Connecting subduction, extension and shear localization across the Aegean Sea and Anatolia,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 226, no. 1, pp. 422–445, 2021, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggab078.
  19. V. Saltogianni, M. Gianniou, T. Taymaz, S. Yolsal-Çevikbilen, and S. Stiros, “The 2014 Mw 6.9 North Aegean Trough (Nat) Earthquake: Seismological and Geodetic Evidence,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1583–1592, 2016, doi: 10.12681/bgsg.11877.
  20. M. Aksoy, “The 9 August 1912 Mürefte-Şarköy earthquake of the North Anatolian fault,” Mediterranean Geoscience Reviews, vol. 3, pp. 1–20, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s42990-021-00050-z.
  21. M. Aksoy, M. Vallée, and Z. Çakir, “Rupture characteristics of the AD 1912 Murefte (Ganos) earthquake segment of the North Anatolian Fault (western Turkey),” Geology, vol. 38, pp. 991–994, 2010, doi: 10.1130/G31447.1.
  22. C. Yaltırak and B. Alpar, “Kinematics and evolution of the northern branch of the North Anatolian Fault (Ganos Fault) between the Sea of Marmara and the Gulf of Saros,” Mar. Geol., vol. 190, no. 1, pp. 351–366, 2002, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(02)00354-7.
  23. C. Yaltırak, B. Alpar, and H. Yüce, “Tectonic elements controlling the evolution of the Gulf of Saros (northeastern Aegean Sea, Turkey),” Tectonophysics, vol. 300, no. 1, pp. 227–248, 1998, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00242-X.
  24. M. Aksoy et al., “Paleoseismology of the Ganos segment; the western extent of the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey),” Turk. J. Earth Sci., vol. 32, pp. 380–401, 2023, doi: 10.55730/1300-0985.1850.
  25. M. Aksoy, H. S. Akyuz, M. Ferry, A. Dikbaş, and E. Altunel, “Paleoseismology of the North Anatolian Fault at Güzelköy (Ganos segment, Turkey): Size and recurrence time of earthquake ruptures west of the Sea of Marmara,” Geochemistry, Geophysics and Geosystems, vol. 13, p. Q04005, 2012, doi: 10.1029/2011gc003960.
  26. M. E. Aksoy et al., “Subaqueous fault scarps of the North Anatolian Fault in the Gulf of Saros (NE Aegean); where is the western limit of the 1912 Mürefte-Şarköy earthquake rupture?” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 229, no. 1, pp. 589–604, 2022, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggab462.
  27. D. Vardar, “Evidence for active faulting in the eastern part of the Gulf of Saros, northern Aegean, from high-resolution seismic data,” J. Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 128, no. 3, p. 52, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s12040-019-1084-y.
  28. I. Sianko et al., “A practical probabilistic earthquake hazard analysis tool: case study Marmara region,” Bull. Earthquake Eng., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 2523–2555, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10518-020-00793-4.
  29. C. Wollin, M. Bohnhoff, P. Martínez-Garzón, L. Küperkoch, and C. Raub, “A unified earthquake catalogue for the Sea of Marmara Region, Turkey, based on automatized phase picking and travel-time inversion: Seismotectonic implications,” Tectonophysics, vol. 747–748, pp. 416–444, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2018.05.020.
  30. T. Ustaömer et al., “Faulting, mass-wasting and deposition in an active dextral shear zone, the Gulf of Saros and the NE Aegean Sea, NW Turkey,” Geo-Mar. Lett., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 171–193, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s00367-007-0099-6.
  31. G. Beyhan, A. Keskinsezer, and A. Silahtar, “Sismik Yansıma ve Gravite Verilerinden Saros Körfezinin Temel Yapısının İncelenmesi,” SAÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 21, pp. 1–1, 2017, doi: 10.16984/saufenbilder.284225.
  32. M. Rodriguez et al., “Evolution of the North Anatolian Fault from a diffuse to a localized shear zone in the North Aegean Sea during the Plio-Pleistocene,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 235, no. 3, pp. 2614–2639, 2023, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggad364.
  33. A. M. Dziewonski, T. A. Chou, and J. H. Woodhouse, “Determination of earthquake source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 86, no. B4, pp. 2825–2852, 1981, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JB086iB04p02825.
  34. G. Ekström, M. Nettles, and A. M. Dziewoński, “The global CMT project 2004–2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes,” Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., vol. 200–201, pp. 1–9, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2012.04.002.
  35. European-Mediterranean Regional Centroid-Moment Tensors Catalog (RCMT), Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), 2002.
  36. J. Quinteros et al., “The GEOFON program in 2020,” Seismol. Res. Lett., vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 1610–1622, 2021.
  37. S. Castellaro, F. Mulargia, and Y. Y. Kagan, “Regression problems for magnitudes,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 165, no. 3, pp. 913–930, 2006, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02955.x.
  38. R. Das et al., “Earthquake Magnitude Conversion Problem,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 1995–2007, 2018, doi: 10.1785/0120170157.
  39. B. Lolli and P. Gasperini, “A comparison among general orthogonal regression methods applied to earthquake magnitude conversions,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 190, no. 2, pp. 1135–1151, 2012, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05530.x.
  40. H. R. Wason, R. Das, and M. L. Sharma, “Magnitude conversion problem using general orthogonal regression,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 190, no. 2, pp. 1091–1096, 2012, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05520.x.
  41. P. Reasenberg, “Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969–1982,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 90, no. B7, pp. 5479–5495, 1985, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JB090iB07p05479.
  42. S. Wiemer, “A Software Package to Analyze Seismicity: ZMAP,” Seismol. Res. Lett., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 373–382, 2001, doi: 10.1785/gssrl.72.3.373.
  43. B. Gutenberg and C. F. Richter, “Frequency of earthquakes in California,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 185–188, 1944, doi: 10.1785/bssa0340040185.
  44. K. Mogi, “Study of Elastic Shocks Caused by the Fracture of Heterogeneous Materials and its Relations to Earthquake Phenomena,” 1962.
  45. C. Scholz, “The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 399–415, 1968, doi: 10.1785/bssa0580010399.
  46. C. Scholz, “On the stress dependence of the earthquake b value,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1399–1402, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062863.
  47. C. Frohlich and S. D. Davis, “Teleseismic b values; Or, much ado about 1.0,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 98, no. B1, pp. 631–644, 1993, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/92JB01891.
  48. K. Aki, “Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula log N = a-bM and its confidence limits,” Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. Tokyo Univ., vol. 43, pp. 237–239, 1965.
  49. C. A. Cornell, “Engineering seismic risk analysis,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1583–1606, 1968.
  50. J. Greenhough and I. Main, “A Poisson model for earthquake frequency uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 35, 2008, doi: 10.1029/2008GL035353.
  51. B. Orlecka-Sikora and S. Lasocki, “Interval Estimation of Seismic Hazard Parameters,” Pure Appl. Geophys., vol. 174, no. 3, pp. 779–791, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s00024-016-1419-4.
  52. C. Frohlich and K. D. Apperson, “Earthquake focal mechanisms, moment tensors, and the consistency of seismic activity near plate boundaries,” Tectonics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 279–296, 1992, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/91TC02888.
  53. Y. Y. Kagan, “Double-couple earthquake focal mechanism: random rotation and display,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 163, no. 3, pp. 1065–1072, 2005, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02781.x.
  54. A. N. Kaverina, A. V. Lander, and A. G. Prozorov, “Global Creepex Distribution and Its Relation to Earthquake-Source Geometry and Tectonic Origin,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 249–265, 1996, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1996.tb06549.x.
  55. J. A. Álvarez-Gómez, “FMC—Earthquake focal mechanisms data management, cluster and classification,” SoftwareX, vol. 9, pp. 299–307, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2019.03.008.
  56. A. Bala, D. Toma-Danila, and M. Radulian, “Focal mechanisms in Romania: statistical features representative for earthquake-prone areas and spatial correlations with tectonic provinces,” Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 263–286, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s40328-019-00260-w.
  57. A. J. Michael, “Determination of stress from slip data: Faults and folds,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 89, no. B13, pp. 11517–11526, 1984, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB13p11517.
  58. A. J. Michael, “Use of focal mechanisms to determine stress: A control study,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 92, no. B1, pp. 357–368, 1987, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JB092iB01p00357.
  59. A. K. Mutlu, “Seismicity, focal mechanism, and stress tensor analysis of the Simav region, western Turkey,” Open Geosciences, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 479–490, 2020, doi: 10.1515/geo-2020-0010.
  60. D. Delvaux and A. Barth, “African stress pattern from formal inversion of focal mechanism data,” Tectonophysics, vol. 482, no. 1, pp. 105–128, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2009.05.009.
  61. V. Vavryčuk, “Iterative joint inversion for stress and fault orientations from focal mechanisms,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 199, no. 1, pp. 69–77, 2014, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu224.
  62. C. Christova and T. Tsapanos, “Depth distribution of stresses in the Hokkaido Wadati-Benioff zone as deduced by inversion of earthquake focal mechanisms,” J. Geodyn., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 557–573, 2000, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-3707(00)00009-0.
  63. S. Wiemer and M. Wyss, “Minimum Magnitude of Completeness in Earthquake Catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 859–869, 2000, doi: 10.1785/0119990114.
  64. S. Wiemer and M. Wyss, “Mapping spatial variability of the frequency-magnitude distribution of earthquakes,” in Advances in Geophysics, vol. 45, R. Dmowska and B. Saltzman, Eds. Elsevier, 2002, pp. 259–V.
  65. S. Öztürk, “Characteristics of seismic activity in the Western, Central and Eastern parts of the North Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey: Temporal and spatial analysis,” Acta Geophys., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 209–238, 2011, doi: 10.2478/s11600-010-0050-5.
  66. H. Alkan, S. Öztürk, Ö. Bektaş, and A. Büyüksaraç, “Statistical and seismotectonic analyses of the Marmara region under existing stress regime in the west of the NAFZ,” Acta Geophys., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 1117–1136, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11600-024-01449-6.
  67. L. Gulia and S. Wiemer, “The influence of tectonic regimes on the earthquake size distribution: A case study for Italy,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 37, no. 10, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043066.
  68. D. Schorlemmer, S. Wiemer, and M. Wyss, “Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different stress regimes,” Nature, vol. 437, no. 7058, pp. 539–542, 2005, doi: 10.1038/nature04094.
  69. Y.-M. Wu, S. K. Chen, T.-C. Huang, H.-H. Huang, W.-A. Chao, and I. Koulakov, “Relationship Between Earthquake b-Values and Crustal Stresses in a Young Orogenic Belt,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1832–1837, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076694.
  70. T. H. W. Goebel, G. Kwiatek, T. W. Becker, E. E. Brodsky, and G. Dresen, “What allows seismic events to grow big?: Insights from b-value and fault roughness analysis in laboratory stick-slip experiments,” Geology, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 815–818, 2017, doi: 10.1130/G39147.1.
  71. M. Kozlowska, M. Brudzinski, P. Friberg, R. Skoumal, N. Baxter, and B. Currie, “Maturity of nearby faults influences seismic hazard from hydraulic fracturing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, p. 201715284, 2018, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1715284115.
  72. A. Petruccelli et al., “Simultaneous Dependence of the Earthquake-Size Distribution on Faulting Style and Depth,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 46, no. 20, pp. 11044–11053, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083997.
  73. E. A. Al-Heety and O. J. Mohammad, “The Reliance of the Earthquake B-Value on Depth and Focal Mechanism,” Iraqi Geological Journal, vol. 54, no. 1D, pp. 1–10, 2021.