�������� ����� ��

Earthquake Mechanisms in the Gulfs of Gokova, Sıgacık, Kusadası, andthe Simav Region (western Turkey): Neotectonics, seismotectonics andgeodynamic implications

Seda Yolsal-Cevikbilen, Tuncay Taymaz, Cahit Helvacı

PII: S0040-1951(14)00233-9DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2014.05.001Reference: TECTO 126297

To appear in: Tectonophysics

Received date: 9 January 2014Revised date: 4 April 2014Accepted date: 1 May 2014

Please cite this article as: Yolsal-Cevikbilen, Seda, Taymaz, Tuncay, Helvacı, Cahit,Earthquake Mechanisms in the Gulfs of Gokova, Sıgacık, Kusadası, and the Simav Region(western Turkey): Neotectonics, seismotectonics and geodynamic implications, Tectono-physics (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2014.05.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofbefore it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production processerrors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers thatapply to the journal pertain.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Earthquake Mechanisms in the Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık,

Kuşadası, and the Simav Region (western Turkey): neotectonics,

seismotectonics and geodynamic implications

by

1Seda Yolsal-Çevikbilen, 1Tuncay Taymaz and 2Cahit Helvacı

1Department of Geophysical Engineering, the Faculty of Mines, Istanbul Technical

University, 34469 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

2Dokuz Eylül University, Department of Geological Engineering, 35160 Buca, Izmir Turkey

* Corresponding author: Seda Yolsal Çevikbilen (e-mail: yolsalse@itu.edu.tr)

Submitted to Tectonophysics on April 03, 2014

Article Type: Special Issue, SI: Cenozoic Extensional

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

The mechanical behaviour of continental lithosphere of Aegean region and western Turkey is

one of the foremost interesting geological disputes in earth sciences. This region provides

complex tectonic events which produced a strong heterogeneity in the crust as such in among

most continental regions. The reasons of the ongoing lithospheric-scale extension within the

Aegean region can be revealed by the correlation with the prevailing kinematic and dynamic

factors such as roll-back of the subduction slab and back arc extension, westward extrusion of

the Anatolian micro-plate, block rotations and transtensional transform faults. Seismological

studies of earthquake source mechanisms and slip inversions play important roles on

deciphering the current deformation and seismotectonic characteristics of the region. In recent

years, several moderate earthquakes have occurred in the Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık, Kuşadası,

and Simav Graben. We studied source mechanisms and rupture histories of those earthquakes

to retrieve the geometry of active faulting, source characteristics, kinematic and dynamic fault

parameters and current deformations in western Turkey. We used teleseismic body-waveform

inversions of long-period P- and SH-, and broad-band P-waveforms. We also checked first

motion polarities of P- waves recorded at both regional and teleseismic stations. Inversion

results revealed E-W striking normal faulting mechanisms with small amount of left-lateral

strike-slip components in the Gulf of Gökova, and NE-SW oriented right-lateral strike-slip

faulting mechanisms in the Gulf of Sığacık. In Simav Graben, earthquake source parameters

show dominantly normal faulting mechanisms with strike-slip components. Our inversions

resulted in focal depths for the earthquake ranging from 10 to 15 km and NE-SW trending T-

axes directions. The finite-fault slip distribution and rupture propagation models exhibit

seismic moment releases and large displacement values essentially occurred at hypocentres of

the earthquakes. The overall results exhibited uniform and circular-shaped rupture

propagations along dip directions of fault planes. Although most of the focal mechanism

solutions show dominantly normal faulting mechanisms associated with the E-W oriented

horst-graben structures in western Turkey, there are also strike-slip faulting mechanisms

related to remarkable strike-slip faults which are capable of generating damaging earthquakes,

particularly in the Gulf of Sığacık and Karaburun Peninsula. Thus, we suggest that present-

day deformation in the Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık, Kuşadası, and Simav Graben (western

Turkey) is still mainly driven by the N-S extensional tectonics, but we tentatively further

emphasize the importance of strike-slip faults in shaping tectonic structures in the Aegean

region.

Keywords: Active tectonics, earthquake source parameters, fault geometry, rupture/slip

history, western Turkey.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

The Aegean region and western Turkey has complex tectonic structures related to a strong

heterogeneity in the crust. Mechanical reasons of the ongoing lithospheric-scale extension

within the region can be deciphered by using all of the existing kinematic and dynamic agents

such as (1) roll-back of the subduction slab and back-arc extension; (2) westward extrusion of

the Anatolian micro-plate; (3) block rotations of the Aegean region and western Turkey; and

(4) transtensional transform faults (McKenzie, 1972; Le Pichon and Angelier, 1979; Dewey

and Şengör, 1979; Jackson and McKenzie, 1984; Taymaz et al., 1990, 1991, 2004a,b,

2007a,b; Laigle et al., 2004; Yolsal-Çevikbilen and Taymaz, 2012; Fichtner et al., 2013a,b).

Tectonic structures have been developed as a result of the northward movements of the

African and Arabian plates relative to the Eurasian plate, and following counter-clockwise

rotation of the Anatolian Block since Miocene. The tectonic escape model offers that

extension in western Turkey is controlled by the westward extrusion of the Anatolian Plate

along the North Anatolian and East Anatolian Fault Zones since 12 Ma. Görür et al. (1995)

proposed two distinct tectonic regimes for SW Turkey: the N–S compressional paleotectonics

of middle to late Miocene regime resulted in a NW–SE trending rift complexes; and the

neotectonic regime possessing the N–S extension resulted in E–W oriented rift and graben

systems (e.g., Gökova graben). The prominent mechanical heterogeneity in the crust is caused

by slab tears underneath the Aegea and western Turkey (de Boorder et al., 1998; Wortel and

Spakman, 2000; van Hinsbergen et al., 2010; Biryol et al., 2011; Jolivet et al., 2012).

Furthermore, the evolution and upwelling of astenospheric mantle source in Anatolian plate

(e.g. Kula volcanism; Afyon volcanism and the mostly part of Eastern Anatolia) could be

associated with a vertical tear in the Mediterranean lithosphere (Saunders et al., 1998).

Recently, Vanacore et al. (2013) determined a deep Moho in eastern Anatolia of up to ∼55

km, a generally normal Moho in Central Anatolia of ∼37–47 km and a thinned Moho in

western Anatolia and Cyprus of ∼30 km from receiver function analysis. They also obtained

high Vp/Vs ratio (>1.85) in western Anatolia which may be indicative of partial melt in the

lower crust associated with regional extension. Observed high heat flow measurements

provide further support to the conjecture that partial melt is present in the western Anatolian

lower crust (Đlkışık, 1995). The bathymetry, geology and geomorphology also clearly indicate

the N-S extensional tectonic system in the study region. The most important geological

structures are E-W trending horst and grabens such as Gökova, Menderes, Gediz, Bakırçay,

Kütahya, Eskişehir and Simav (Fig. 1) which are bordered by E-W and NE-SW trending

normal faults seen on the morphology (Taymaz and Price, 1992; Taymaz et al., 2004a,b,

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2007a; Şaroğlu et al., 1992; Kurt et al., 1999; Yılmaz et al., 2000; Gürer et al., 2001, 2013;

ten Veen et al., 2009; Alçiçek, 2010; Çifçi et al., 2011; Karaoğlu and Helvacı, 2012; Sümer et

al., 2013).

FIGURE 1

The active tectonics and related complex deformations resulted from the African–Eurasian

convergence have also been associated with intense seismicity including many destructive

earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean region (Taymaz et al., 2004a,b, 2007a,b; Yolsal et

al., 2007; Yolsal-Çevikbilen and Taymaz, 2012). For example, there are several earthquakes

(Mw > 5.0; 1989-2011) occurred in the Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık, Kuşadası, and Simav

Graben in western Turkey (see Table 1). These gulfs have been investigated by numerous

geological, geophysical (i.e. seismic, electric, microtectonic, palaeomagnetic, seismology)

and geodetical studies (e.g. Kissel et al., 1986; Taymaz and Price, 1992; Görür et al., 1995;

Kurt et al., 1999; Yılmaz et al., 2000; Çağlar and Duvarcı, 2001; Ocakoğlu et al., 2004;

Taymaz et al., 2004a; Uluğ et al., 2005; Benetatos et al, 2006; Sarı and Şalk, 2006; Reilinger

et al., 2010; Yolsal et al., 2007; Helvacı et al., 2009; Yolsal and Taymaz, 2010a,b; Ocakoğlu,

2012; Ersoy et al., 2012; Kalafat and Horasan, 2012; Uzel et al., 2013; Đşcan et al., 2013; Tan,

2013). In this study, we examined source characteristics of the earthquakes and

seismotectonic structures by analyzing focal mechanism solutions and finite-fault slip

distributions. The study region is shown with rectangles in Fig. 1.

The Gulf of Gökova region

The Gulf of Gökova is one of the greatest graben systems in western Turkey. It is surrounded

by Datça Peninsula to the south, the Kos island to the west and Bodrum Peninsula to the

north, and it is considered as either a rift (Görür et al., 1995) or a graben (Yılmaz et al., 2000)

related to the on-going N-S extension in the Aegean region. It has about 90 km E-W length

and 25 km N-S width (Figs. 1 and 2). It is a part of the southern Menderes Massif defined as a

metamorphic core complex by Bozkurt and Park (1994) and Işık and Tekeli (2001). The

Lycian Nappes and Đzmir - Ankara suture zone exist in the south and north, respectively

(Seyitoğlu et al., 2004). The northern margin of the gulf is limited by a linear mountain front,

which rises steeply to > 900 m. The E- and NE-trending faults cut the N-S-trending graben

bounding faults and rock groups of the pre-Quaternary basins. However, the southern margin

is topographically less steep, and it is marked by many bays and small offshore islands

(Yılmaz et al., 2000). By analyzing multi-channel seismic reflection data, Kurt et al. (1999)

suggested a north-dipping listric normal fault called as a Datça fault in the Gulf of Gökova.

They obtained overall rate of extension factor which is at least 1.1 mm/yr with an amount of

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

total extension at 5.5 km depth. Çağlar and Duvarcı (2001) identified the geoelectric model of

the graben within the gulf. They determined comparatively complex and asymmetrical graben

structure disturbed by faults, and suggested that the basement is deeper at the eastern part of

the gulf than its other parts. Palaeomagnetic studies revealed both clockwise and

anticlockwise rotations and complex pattern of rotations around vertical axes in western

Anatolian graben systems (Kissel et al., 1986; Piper et al., 2010). Uluğ et al. (2005) reported

crustal deformation of younger active left-lateral strike-slip faulting called as the Gökova

Transfer Fault (GTF), extending NE–SW direction in the central part of the Gökova basin.

Pavlides et al. (2009) divided the faults in the Gulf of Gökova into two main segments: (a) the

partly submarine, E-W and NE-SW trending Gökova-Kos segment defining the northern

shore of the Gulf of Gökova; (b) the mainland NE-SW trending Gökova segment that forms a

very impressive and dominant scarp totally controlling the geomorphology of the region

(drainage, alluvial fans and colluviums). They also suggested that both segments which dip to

SE- and S- directions have predominantly normal mechanisms with strike-slip components.

From bathymetric data, they observed that the continuation of the first segment is submarine,

and it continues up to the southern shores of Kos Island, posing a probable seismic source for

this part of the Aegean Sea. Rontogianni et al. (2011) studied seismic activity occurred

between 2002 and 2011 extending from Kos island to the center of the Gulf of Gökova,

mostly concentrated to the south of the gulf. They reported that focal depths of earthquakes

vary from the west (h ~5 km) to the inner part of the gulf (h ~15 km), and the activity of the

Datça Fault has not been decelerated as previously proposed. They also proposed a probable

connection between the NE-trending active fault, named as Gökova Transfer Fault (GTF) in

the central part of the gulf and the fault of Kos. Kalafat and Horasan (2012) noticed strong

reflection phases on seismograms at about 17-18 km depth. Đşcan et al. (2013) suggested that

the Gulf of Gökova is at present experiencing strike-slip motions with compressional

deformation, rather than extension, and this deformation plays an important role in the

evolution of the ridges, troughs and the shelf areas of the gulf.

The Gulf of Gökova has been subjected to many earthquakes in its history. Ergin et al. (1967)

reported several destructive historical earthquakes (e,g, 141 AC, 174 AC, 1493, 1851, 1863,

1869) in the region. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of earthquakes in the gulf (Mw > 3.0)

reported by United State Geological Survey (USGS) for the period of 1973-2013. Most of

moderate-size recent earthquakes (Mw ≥ 5.0) are concentrated along the E-W trending normal

faults located at the northern and southern parts of the gulf (Fig. 2). At its central part, small

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

magnitude earthquakes (Mw < 4.0) are usually observed. In the gulf, earthquakes occur as

seismic clusters and continue for a long time. This kind of earthquake generation pattern

should be characteristics of the Gulf of Gökova. For example, during the July 3, 2004 and

December 21, 2004, Boğaziçi University Kandilli Observatory (KOERI) seismic network

recorded about two thousand earthquakes with magnitudes varying from ML 2.0 to 5.5 as

clusters which are mainly aligned to the NE-SW direction with a length of about 30 km.

FIGURE 2

The Gulf of Sığacık and Kuşadası region

The Gulf of Sığacık is located on the south of Karaburun Peninsula. It lies between the

headlands of Doğanbey Burnu and Teke Burnu in western Turkey which has a very complex

and rapidly changing tectonic structure. The gulf is bordered by an active right-lateral N-S

trending Gülbahçe (or Karaburun Fault) (GF) and NE-SW trending Seferihisar Faults (SF)

(Fig. 3; Ocakoğlu et al., 2004). These faults are responsible for the intense 2005 earthquake

activity observed in the Gulf of Sığacık where there have been reported 839 earthquakes

(M>2.4) occurred on October 17-31, 2005. Earthquake epicenters are mostly concentrated

along the southern part of the Gülbahçe Fault (GF) (KOERI, 2005). The Gülbahçe Fault (GF)

extends for about 15 km on land, and continues to the north and south under the sea. It is an

important structural zone formed by parallel and sub-parallel faults between Karaburun

Peninsula and Gulf of Đzmir. Its fault length reaches to 70 km along with the submarine

portion, and its southern segment can be observed on land between Gülbahçe and Sığacık

bays. It is thought that bathymetry of the Gulf of Đzmir in the south is also controlled by this

fault. The other important active right-lateral strike-slip fault affecting the gulf is the N20°E

trending Seferihisar Fault (SF) which lies between the Gulf of Sığacık and Güzelbahçe about

30 km in length (Fig. 3). The April 10, 2003 earthquake (Mw: 5.7) occurred on the western

boundary of the Seferihisar horst. Taymaz et al. (2004b) determined a right-lateral strike-slip

faulting mechanism with a shallow focal depth (h: 8 km) for this earthquake. In general, focal

depths are shallow and range from 0 to 20 km in this part of western Turkey. Koravos et al.

(2003) reported a maximum earthquake magnitude to be 7.2 with 77% the ratio of seismic to

tectonic moment release for Đzmir and surroundings by using historical and recent earthquake

catalogues covering the time period of 550 BC-2000 AD. Besides, Benetatos et al. (2006) and

Aktar et al. (2007) reported complex fault structure patterns by analyzing aftershock

distributions, Coulomb stress changes and focal mechanism solutions of the 2005 Gulf of

Sığacık earthquakes. They observed two distinct earthquake clusters which are approximately

perpendicular to each other, and providing strong seismological evidence for an active

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

conjugate fault system within the region. Aktuğ and Kılıçoğlu (2006) reported E-W

shortening and N-S extension between the Karaburun Peninsula and northern part of Đzmir

which could be related to right-lateral strike-slip faulting and a clockwise rotation by using

principal and shear strains along with rigid - body rotation rates.

FIGURE 3

The Simav Graben region

Active N–S extensional tectonic system in western Turkey causes E–W-trending high angle

normal faults which control the present-day E–W trending graben-type basin formation such

as the Gediz and Simav grabens (Fig. 1). The Simav Graben, which is bounded by E-W

oriented high-angle normal fault, is formed as a result of the latest stage of extensional

tectonics (Işık et al., 2003). There are many active fault segments evaluated within Simav

Fault Zone (SFZ). In the graben, earthquakes commonly occur on this normal fault, and on its

branches (Fig. 4). Gediz, Emet, Simav and Kütahya Fault Zones are the main active faults

which caused the damaging earthquakes in recent years and past such as 1899 Büyük

Menderes, 1928 Emet (M=6.2), 1944 Şaphane-Kütahya (M=6.2), 1955 Söke-Balat (M=6.8),

1969 Alaşehir (M=6.5), 1970 Gediz (M=7.2), 1970 Çavdarhisar-Kütahya (M=5.9) and 1995

Dinar (M=6.1) (see Ergin et al., 1967).

FIGURE 4

The goal of this paper is to advance our understanding of active extensional tectonics and

current deformations in western Turkey by studying source characteristics of recent

earthquakes along with kinematic and dynamic fault parameters. Therefore, source

mechanisms, finite-fault slip distributions and rupture propagations of 14 earthquakes (Mw ≥

5.0; 1989–2011; Table 1) are analyzed. We specifically focus on the Gulfs of Gökova,

Sığacık, Kuşadası, and Simav Graben due to recent intense earthquake activities. In addition,

we have compared outstanding results with the existing observations from previous tectonic,

geophysical, geodetical and geological studies.

TABLES 1 & 2

2. Data and Methods

Source mechanism studies reveal the nature of earthquakes, source characteristics, faulting

geometry and active deformations. Far-field, point-source and double-couple approaches are

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

commonly used to estimate earthquake source parameters (Tan and Taymaz, 2006; Yolsal et

al., 2007; Taymaz et al., 1990, 1991, 2004a,b, 2007a,b; Yolsal-Çevikbilen and Taymaz, 2012;

Fielding et al., 2013a,b). We briefly summarize the details of each seismological methods

used in this study below (Fig. 5).

FIGURE 5

2.1. Teleseismic P- and SH- waveform inversion

We performed point-source inversion by using teleseismic (30° ≤ ∆ ≤ 90°) long-period P- and

SH- and broad-band P- waveforms recorded by the International Federation of Digital

Seismograph Networks (FDSN) and the Global Digital Seismograph Network (GDSN)

stations to determine source parameters of moderate size (Mw ≥ 5.0) earthquakes occurred in

the Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık, Kuşadası, and Simav Graben. The MT5 (Moment Tensor 5)

alghorithm of the body-waveform inversion method developed by Nàbělek (1984),

McCaffrey et al. (1991) and Zwick et al. (1994) was used to invert the P- and SH- waveforms

for adjusting strike (φ), dip (δ), rake (λ) angles, focal depth (h), seismic moment (Mo) and

source time function described by a series of overlapping isosceles triangles of the best

double‐couple solutions (Table 1 and Fig. 5a,b). We compared shapes and amplitudes of

observed and synthetic waveforms. Amplitudes were adjusted for geometrical spreading, and

for attenuation by using Futterman’s (1962) operator, with t* = 1s for P- and t* = 4s for SH-

waves. It is known that uncertainties in t* affect mainly source duration and seismic moment,

rather than source orientation or focal (centroid) depth (Fredrich et al., 1988; McCaffrey and

Aber’s, 1988; Taymaz et al., 1990, 1991, 2007a,b; Taymaz and Price, 1992). Velocity

responses were deconvolved from the records and then we re-convolved them with the

response of old WWSSN 15-100 long-period instruments. We did not apply any filtering on

P- and SH- waveforms. We used a half-space source velocity model consisting of P-wave

velocity (Vp) = 6.8 km/s, S-wave velocity (Vs) = 3.9 km/s and density (ρ) = 2.9 g/cm3 given

by Zwick et al. (1994), Makris and Stobbe (1984), Taymaz et al. (1990,1991) and Taymaz

and Price (1992), a simplified crustal model for teleseismic waveform modeling with the MT5

algorithm. To mimic variations in bathymetry, we added a water layer with a velocity of Vp =

1.5 km/s and varying thicknesses (~ 0.5 - 1 km, based on the bathymetry data; Smith and

Sandwell, 1997a,b) into the velocity model when the waveform data recorded for submarine

earthquakes is subjected to the inversion. Synthetic waveforms were formed by the

combination of direct (P- or SH-) and reflected (pP and sP, or sS) phases from a point-source

embedded in the given velocity structure. Receiver structures were assumed to be

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

homogeneous half-spaces. Arrival times were determined by using the Jeffreys – Bullen

travel time table (Jeffreys and Bullen, 1940, 1958). Uncertainties of source parameters were

obtained by following the procedure described by McCaffrey and Nabelek (1987), Fredrich et

al. (1988), Molnar and Lyon-Caen (1989), Taymaz et al. (1990, 1991, 2007b), Maggi et al.

(2000), Jackson et al. (2002), Tan and Taymaz (2006) and Yolsal-Çevikbilen and Taymaz

(2012). We looked into one parameter at a time by fixing it at a series of values either side of

its value yielded by the minimum misfit solution, and allowing the other parameters to be

found by the inversion routine. Then, we visually examined the quality of fitting between

observed and synthetic seismograms to notice if it had deteriorated from the minimum misfit

solution. In this way, we found the uncertainties in strike, dip and rake angles to be ± 5°–10°,

and of focal depths to be ± 2 km (Table 1).

2.2. Finite-fault slip inversion and rupture propagation

Kinematic rupture models for moderate to large earthquakes can be determined by inverting

waveforms (e.g., Hartzell and Heaton, 1983; Yagi and Kikuchi, 2000; Yagi et al., 2003, 2004,

2012a,b; Tan and Taymaz, 2006; Taymaz et al., 2007a,b; Yolsal-Çevikbilen and Taymaz,

2012; Fielding et al., 2013a,b). For finite-fault slip distributions, we used an inversion scheme

developed by Yoshida (1992) and Yagi and Kikuchi (2000) with the Jeffreys-Bullen velocity-

depth model (Jeffreys and Bullen, 1940, 1958) and FDSN-GDSN teleseismic broad-band P-

waveforms made available through the Data Management Center of the Incorporated

Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS-DMC). At this time, we could not use SH-

waveforms together with P- waveforms in this slip inversion code, so we only used broad-

band P-waveforms in inversions. However, development of this algorithm is currently in

progress for adding the SH- waveforms into the inversion (Yagi et al., 2012a,b). We also

collected near-field strong motion data recorded by Bodrum (BDR) and Marmaris (MRM)

stations which are operated by Turkish General Directorate of Disaster Affairs and

Earthquake Research Department (http://www.deprem.gov.tr) to improve the resolution of

finite-fault slip distribution models. Yagi et al. (2004) compared slip distribution models

obtained by using different data sets (e.g., both teleseismic body wave and near-field data;

only teleseismic data; and only near-field data), and they concluded that slip models inverted

from only teleseismic body waves seem to maintain its stability, whereas results from only

near-field data tend to be concentrated into small patches and to be sensitive to the assumed

structure. They further suggested that usage of both teleseismic and near-field data together

was substantially necessary to obtain stable and detailed inversion solutions. Waveforms were

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

windowed for 60 sec, starting 10 sec before the origin time (to). After band-pass filtering

between 0.01 Hz and 0.8 Hz, teleseismic velocity seismograms were converted into ground

displacement with a sampling rate of 0.25 sec. Near-field strong motion data were filtered

between 0.05 – 0.5 Hz frequency range and converted into displacement records. A numerical

method for a standard waveform inversion scheme given by Hartzell and Heaton (1983) and

Yoshida (1992) was used to construct the earthquake source model. We assumed that faulting

occurs on a single fault plane, and slip angle remains unchanged during the rupture. The

rupture process were presented as a spatio-temporal slip distribution on a fault plane which

was divided into M x N sub-faults with length dx and width dy. Then, slip-rate function on

each sub-fault was described by a series of L triangle functions with a pre-defined rise time τ

(Fig. 5c). Rupture velocity (Vr) is set to be 3.2 km/sec. Green's functions for teleseismic body

waves and near-source strong motion data were calculated by using the method of Kikuchi

and Kanamori (1991) and Kokhetsu (1985), respectively. We also applied smoothing

constraints to the slip distribution with respect to time and space to prevent the instability that

may be occurred by increasing the number of model parameters in inversions. The other

details of finite-fault slip inversion can be found at relevant studies (Hartzell and Heaton,

1983; Yoshida, 1992, Yoshida et al., 1996; Yagi and Kikuchi, 2000; Yagi et al., 2003, 2004,

2012a,b; Tan and Taymaz, 2006; Yolsal-Çevikbilen and Taymaz, 2012; Fielding et al.,

2013a).

Earthquake source parameters (strike, dip, rake angles, focal depth and seismic moment) and

epicenter locations (latitude and longitude) summarized in Table 1 were implemented as

initial parameters for slip distribution inversions.

3. Results

Source mechanisms and finite-fault slip distributions of 14 earthquakes (Mw ≥ 5.0; 2000-

2011) occurred within the Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık and Simav Graben are extracted in this

study (Figs. 4, 6 and 7). The point-source parameters (Mw ≥ 5.0) obtained from teleseismic P-

and SH-waveform inversions are listed in Tables 1 and 2. In text, we only presented best-

fitting waveform point source solutions of three earthquakes sampling different parts of

western Turkey as case studies (Fig. 1): the August 04, 2004 Gulf of Gökova (Mw: 5.4), the

October 20, 2005 Gulf of Sığacık (Mw: 5.7) and the May 19, 2011 Simav (Mw: 5.8)

earthquakes. The details of complimentary results are given in Appendix, and on-line

electronic supplementary material. We compared our best-fitting minimum misfit solutions

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

with the source parameters reported by various moment tensor catalogues. Although strike,

dip and rake angles of earthquakes seem to be quite similar to the values of moment tensor

catalogues there are significant differences in seismic moment (Mo) and focal depths (h) of

earthquakes. It is well-known that accurate estimation of seismic moment release and focal

depths are important in defining the tectonic structure, regional strain rates and seismogenic

zone of a region and in making a better assessment of earthquake hazard; hence this type of

earthquake source studies has a great importance to constrain accurate seismogenic depths

beneath tectonically active regions. In addition, we obtained the error limits of source

parameters by using uncertainty tests. Example of test results on strike, dip, rake angles and

focal depth are given in Appendix (Figs. A1 and A2). First motion polarities of P- waves

recorded by seismic stations at regional and teleseismic distances are also examined, and they

are found to be as quite consistent (± 5-10°) with teleseismic inversion results (Figs. A3, A5

and A7).

FIGURE 6 & FIGURE 7

We further determined the fault length (L), fault width (W), maximum and average

displacements (Dmax and Dav) as by product of the finite-fault slip models. Then, we

calculated stress drop values for each earthquakes (∆σ=7×π3/2× Mo / 16× S3/2; where ∆σ is

stress drop value, Mo is seismic moment and S is the faulting area; after Aki, 1972; Kanamori,

1994) based on the assumption of circular crack model as additional dynamic parameters. We

used near-field earthquake data in slip inversions, but due to the limited number of stations

they did not improve our slip distribution models.

3.1 Case study of the August 04, 2004 Gulf of Gökova earthquake (Mw: 5.4)

The August 4, 2004 earthquake (to: 03:01:07.10 - Mw: 5.4) occurred at the southern part of the

Gulf of Gökova (Fig. 6). In order to find the preferred best-fitting waveform point-source

solution (Fig. 8a), we used teleseismic long-period (LP) 34 P- and 9 SH- waveforms.

Inversion result shows NE-SW directed normal faulting mechanism with a small strike-slip

component (strike: 61° ± 10°, dip: 38° ± 5°, rake: -103° ± 10°, h: 9 ± 2 km). The distribution

of P- wave first motion polarities which is shown on the left corner of Fig. 8a help us better

constrain the nodal planes. It is seen that P- wave first motions are quite consistent with the

inversion result within ± 5-10°. For example, OBN (Δ=19.17°), ANTO (Δ=4.93°), WDD

(Δ=10.73°) and CSS (Δ=4.92°) stations locate close to nodal planes on the focal sphere, and

they clearly verified our faulting mechanism (Fig. A3). We also present selected waveform

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

fits for the Zurich Regional Moment Tensor (Zur-RMT), Harvard-Centroid Moment Tensor

(CMT), USGS –NEIC and Mediterranean Regional Centroid Moment Tensor (MED-RCMT)

solutions compared with our minimum misfit solution. Our preferred point-source fits the

waveforms better overall (Fig. 8b). Source time function indicates the source duration of

about 3 sec, and seismic moment (Mo) of 14.35 × 1016 Nm (Fig. 8a). By using the seismic

moment (Mo) and Kanamori and Anderson (1975) equation, we calculated moment magnitude

(Mw) of this earthquake as to be 5.4. We also obtained an alternative point-source solution

(strike: 76°, dip: 35° and rake: -99°) by using 26 teleseismic broad-band P- waveforms which

reveals similar source mechanism parameters (Fig. A4).

FIGURE 8a & 8b

The finite-fault spatial and temporal slip distribution model was obtained from the inversion

of 39 teleseismic broad-band P- waveforms (Figs. 8c,d). The fault plane (strike 61°±10°, dip

38°±5°, rake -103°±10°) was divided into 20 sub-faults with dimensions of 4 × 4 km2. The

source time function of each sub-fault was expanded in a series of two overlapping triangle

functions each with a rise time (τ) of 0.5 s. The slip model indicated circular-shaped rupture

propagation along the dip direction of the fault plane. Maximum displacement (Dmax: 10 cm)

was obtained at ~ 4 km above the hypocenter (Figs. 8c,d). Seismic moment (Mo: 11.23 × 1016

Nm) was found as similar to the point-source minimum misfit solution (Mo: 14.35 × 1016

Nm). The size of faulting area was estimated as 10 km (fault length) × 9 km (fault width). The

stress drop and average displacement were calculated as ~ 3 bars and ~ 4 cm, respectively

(Table 2). In order to test the effects of choosing nodal plane on slip inversions, we took the

other nodal plane as a fault plane, but we did not observe any significant differences in slip

model.

FIGURE 8c & FIGURE 8d

3.2 Case study of the October 20, 2005 Gulf of Sığacık earthquake (Mw: 5.7)

Three moderate earthquakes (Mw ≥ 5.0) occurred on October 17, 2005 along the major strike-

slip faults bordering the Gulf of Sığacık. Three days later, the October 20, 2005 earthquake

(Mw 5.7) hit the western part of the gulf (Table 1 and Fig. 7). We determined the best-fitting

waveform point-source solution of the October 20, 2005 earthquake by using teleseismic

long-period 19 P- and 22 SH- waveforms. Inversion result shows a right-lateral strike-slip

faulting mechanism with a small amount of dip-slip component (Fig. 9a). Strike, dip and rake

angles of the fault plane and focal depth were found to be 224° ± 10°, 81°± 10°, 182 ± 10°

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and 10 ± 2 km, respectively. The seismic moment of 50.76 × 1016 Nm was also adjusted

(Table 1). We plotted the selected P- and SH- waveform fits which are near the nodal planes

to compare the source parameters given by Harvard-CMT, USGS-NEIC and Benetatos et al.

(2006) with our preferred point-source mechanism (Fig. 9b). It is seen that the fitting of P-

and SH- wave amplitudes (e.g., see TIXI, KURK, USP, YAK, LSA, KBS and MYNC

stations) are better than the fitting with the other reported source parameters. The distribution

of P-wave first motion polarities recorded by stations at regional (e.g., TIR, WDD, ISP) and

teleseismic distances was illustrated in Fig. A5. In addition, an alternative point-source

solution was obtained by using 18 broad-band P waveforms alone (Fig. A6). The solution

shows strike-slip faulting mechanism with a seismic moment of 62.82 x 1016 Nm (using the

same velocity-depth model), but it is less reliable than our preferred minimum misfit solution

obtained by using both P- and SH- waveforms.

FIGURE 9a &FIGURE 9b

The finite-fault slip distributions were further determined by analyzing the details of 16

teleseismic broad-band P- waveforms. The spatial and temporal slip model was calculated by

assuming the NE-SW trending plane (strike 224°±10°, dip 81°±10°, rake 182°±10°) as the

fault plane using an NE-SW aligning best-located aftershock epicentres supported by

Benetatos et al. (2006) . The fault plane was divided in to 5 × 6 sub-faults, each with an area

of 3 × 3 km2. Slip-rate function on each sub-fault was expanded into a series of two triangle

functions with a rise time (τ=1 sec). Seismic moment (Mo) and stress drop (∆σ) were found to

be 52.42 × 1016 Nm and ~9 bars, respectively. The maximum slip (Dmax) was obtained to be

~50 cm at approximately 3 km above the centroid, and ~13 cm average over the faulting area

(Table 2). Slip model showed a circle-shaped, simple rupture propagating along the dip

direction. Most of seismic moment releases occurred in ~5 sec. However, small amount of

moment releases at ~ 6 km below the centroid with about 25 cm displacement was also

observed (Fig. 9c).

FIGURE 9c

3.3 Case study of the May 19, 2011 Simav earthquake (Mw: 5.8)

The Simav earthquake of May 19, 2011, which is a good example of the evolution of graben

system in western Turkey, occurred along the Simav Fault at USGS-NEIC epicentral

coordinates of 39.10°N and 29.09°E (Table 1; Fig. 4). The surface rupture was not observed

(KOERI, 2011) and aftershocks with focal depths in the range of 5-10 km are distributed on a

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

30 km long which is parallel to the existing faults (Şaroğlu et al., 1992). We analyzed

teleseismic long-period 28 P- and 3 SH- waveforms in order to find the best-fitting waveform

point-source solution. Inversion result yielded normal faulting mechanism with a small

amount of strike-slip component (Table 1; Fig. 10a) confirming the active N-S extentional

tectonics in western Turkey. We determined a shallow focal depth (h: 9 ± 2 km) and a short

source duration (~ 2.5 s). The strike, dip and rake angles of the fault plane were found to be

287° ± 5°, 58° ± 5°, -94° ± 5°, respectively. The comparison of other source parameters stated

by moment tensor catalogues was illustrated in Fig. 10b. We further constrained the minimum

misfit solution by using the P-wave first motion polarities recorded at regional (e.g., GNI,

OBN and WDD) and teleseismic (e.g., RCBR and PSI) stations (Fig. A7). An alternative

source mechanism solution which shows normal faulting mechanism was also complimented

by using 24 teleseismic broad-band (BB) P- waveforms (Fig. A8).

FIGURE 10a & FIGURE 10b

The finite-fault slip distribution model of 2011 Simav earthquake (Fig. 10c) was determined

by using 39 teleseismic broad-band P- waveforms. Observed and synthetic P- waveforms

were shown in Fig. 10d. We selected the nodal plane which has strike (ϕ: 287°), dip (δ: 58°)

and rake (λ: -94°) angles as a fault plane. Then, it was divided into 3 × 3 sub-faults which

have dimensions 3×3 km2. The moment rate function on each sub-fault was expanded by two

isosceles triangle functions having a rise time (τ) of 0.75sec. Obtained kinematic and dynamic

source parameters were seismic moment (Mo: 53.6×1016Nm), source duration (~2.5 sec), fault

length (L: 6 km), fault width (W: 6 km) and stress drop value (△σ ~ 62 bars) (Table 2). We

further determined that maximum and average displacements (Dmax: 190 cm; Dav: 50 cm)

occurred at the hypocentre, and rupture propagated along the dip direction during this

earthquake (Figs. 10c,d).

FIGURE 10c & FIGURE 10d

4. Discussion and Conclusions

As elucidated above, complex tectonic evolution of western Turkey and Aegean region has

been studied by many researchers using different geophysical methods, geodetic and

palaeomagnetic studies, and by field geology observations. There are several proposed

models for the deformation styles and active tectonics of the region. In this study, we

exhibited that present-day deformation in the Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık, Kuşadası and Simav

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Graben is still predominantly driven by the N-S extensional tectonics existing in western

Turkey. Although most of the focal mechanism solutions show dominantly normal faulting

mechanisms associated with the E-W striking horst-graben systems in the region, there are

also strike-slip faulting mechanisms related to remarkable strike-slip faults which are capable

of generating damaging earthquakes, particularly in the Gulf of Sığacık and Karaburun

Peninsula. The finite-fault slip models exhibit that seismic moment releases and large

displacement values mainly occurred at the centroid of earthquakes indicating uniform

rupture propagations along the fault planes. The overall source time functions for complete

ruptures show that most of the seismic energy is released in the first 2-5 sec.

We summarize current active tectonics and deformations along with source mechanisms, slip

distributions, rupture propagations on fault planes and intense earthquake activity. Tectonic

models as indicated by local geology, geodesy (GPS, InSAR as such), paleoseismology, and

geophysics (gravity, magnetic, seismic refraction and reflection) help us to conclude the

overall tectonic activity of the region.

4.1 The Gulf of Gökova region

Analysis of source mechanism solutions and finite-fault spatio-temporal slip distributions of

10 moderate-size Gulf of Gökova earthquakes (Mw ≥ 5.0; 1986-2005) allow us to explore

recent tectonics, source characteristics, and kinematic and dynamic source parameters in the

gulf (Tables 1 and 2). Focal mechanisms are mostly characterized by E-W trending high-

angle normal faulting mechanisms revealing extensional tectonics in the gulf (Fig. 6).

Earthquakes have also small amount of strike-slip components. T-axes directions reveal N-S

and NW-SE extensions which are coherent with the geology and seismotectonic structures of

the region. Earthquake activities and kinematic source parameters reveal that highest

seismicity occurred in the upper crust. Kokkalas and Aydın (2013) emphasized a distinct

relationship between surface faulting, magmatic intrusions and volcanic activity in the

Aegean continental crust by using detailed structural observations from compilations of

lineament maps and earthquake locations with focal mechanism solutions. They suggested

that NE trend of volcano-tectonic features, such as volcanic cone alignments, concentration of

eruptive centers, hydrothermal activity and fractures and offshore sedimentary basins in the

upper crust, indicates the significant role of tectonics in controlling fluid and magma

pathways in the magmatic provinces and volcanic centers in south central Aegean. For

example, in the SE Aegean, the most distinctive NE-trending fault zone extends from the

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

south of Kos Island to the central Crete basin. It is suggested that this left-lateral strike-slip

and oblique normal fault zone, which is sub-parallel the active sinistral transform system such

as Pliny and Strabo trenches, control the deformation in Gökova and Kos basins. They also

reported that eruptive centers and volcanic features such as Santorini, Milos, and Nysiros

Islands seem to develop in tectonic settings associated with transtensional deformation (Fig.

1; Kokkalas and Aydın, 2013). Stiros (2000) also emphasized the correlation between the

eruptive volcanic and intense earthquake activities on Nisyros Island in AD 1887, 1873 and

possibly around 1422. Archaeological evidences with historical seismicity in Datça Peninsula

(SW Turkey) are widely reported by specifying damages of destructive earthquakes such as

24 BC, 412 BC (Ambraseys and White, 1997), 227 BC, 199-198 BC, AD 142-144, AD 344,

AD 474-478 and AD 554-558 events (Guidoboni et al., 1994; Yolsal et al., 2007). However,

in this study we could not determine significant strike-slip faulting mechanisms with

compressional deformation in the Gulf of Gökova by analyzing moderate-size (Mw ≥ 5.0)

earthquakes (Fig. 6). Focal depths are constrained better than the reported values by moment

tensor catalogues and they are mostly shallow (Table 1). Therefore, we suggest the

seismogenic depth to be about 15 km within the gulf. The finite-fault slip inversion models

generally exhibit uniform and circular-shaped rupture propagations along dip directions with

simple source time functions and short source durations. Since the earthquakes are small and

moderate sizes, finite-fault slip models obtained using teleseismic data do not reflect the

details of the rupture, they only give us the general information about slip distributions on

fault planes, and help us to determine average fault dimensions, stress drop and displacement

values on faulting area.

4.2 The Gulf of Sığacık, Kuşadası and Simav Graben

We analysed source mechanisms and rupture histories of 3 moderate-size earthquakes

occurred in the Gulf of Sığacık along with their aftershocks, and those occurred in

surrounding regions of Đzmir using teleseismic long-period P- and SH- and broad-band P-

body-waveforms recorded by FDSN- GDSN stations. It is obtained that this area is

characterized by N-S and NE-SW trending active strike-slip faults which are also observed in

seismic reflection studies (Fig. 3; Ocakoğlu et al., 2004). We found NE-SW oriented right-

lateral strike-slip faulting mechanisms with small dip-slip components, and uniform rupture

propagations on fault planes which are in a good agreement with the general geology and

tectonic structure of the region (Fig. 7). T-axes directions reveal NE-SW extension in the Gulf

of Sığacık. Earthquake focal depths are shallow, and they vary between 10 and 15 km.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Seismicity maps show that most of the earthquake epicenters are concentrated along the

southern part of the Gülbahçe-Karaburun (GF) and Seferihisar Faults (SF) whereas no seismic

activity observed on the northern segment of them during 17–31 October 2005. The spatial

and temporal finite-fault slip model of October 20, 2005 Sığacık earthquake (Mw: 5.7) shows

NE directed rupture propagation (Fig. 9c) consistent with the Coulomb stress transfer

modelling and aftershock distributions reported by Benetatos et al. (2006) and Aktar et al.

(2007). Recent studies have enabled recognition of the NE-trending strike-slip shear zones,

which are thought to be part of the regional scale extensional-dominated transfer zone or

wrench corridor (Okay et al., 1996; Ring et al., 1999; Benetatos et al., 2006; Aktar et al.,

2007; Uzel and Sözbilir, 2008; Sözbilir et al., 2009; Özkaymak et al., 2011; Uzel et al., 2013).

Furthermore, the moderate size April 02, 1996 Gulf of Kuşadası earthquake (Mw: 5.3) shows

normal faulting mechanism with a significant amount of right-lateral strike-slip motion (Fig.

7; Tan and Taymaz, 2003; Taymaz et al., 2004b). This mechanism is also consistent with the

multi-channel seismic reflection data (Gürçay et al., 2012) and morphological and

archaeological observations (Stiros et al., 2000, 2011). Mascle and Martin (1990) mapped

several E–W trending normal faults (e.g., Lesvos Fault, Chios Fault, Samos Fault and Ikaria

Fault) bordering the main offshore basins neighboring the Gulf of Kuşadası region. They

suggested that these faults, which seem to control the topography and bathymetry gradients of

the NW part of Samos and of the NE part of the adjacent Ikaria Island, are compatible with

on-land normal faults such as Đzmir Fault (IF) and Küçük Menderes Fault (KMF) in the way

of their geometries and characteristics (Fig. 3). However, Mariolakos and Papanikolaou

(1981) proposed a strike-slip fault separating these islands in Aegean Sea. Similarly, Lykousis

et al. (1995) observed Pliocene – Quaternary strike-slip faults offshore Samos and Ikaria

Islands which appeared to be related with en-echelon of transpressional reverse faults.

Evidences of transpressional faulting mechanisms in the Gulf of Sığacık and Karaburun

Peninsula (western Turkey) supported shear-controlled tectonics in this part of the Aegean

Sea. Kokkalas and Aydın (2013) also reported that NE-trending fault zone possibly initiates

from the Tuzla Fault (TF) in Karaburun Peninsula, passing north of Samos and Ikaria Islands

and extending until the volcanic center of the Milos Island (Figs. 1 and 3). Besides, Stiros et

al (2000, 2011) indicated important evidences of elevated shorelines on the NW part of the

Samos Island and the Ikaria Island. They further argued that the observed coastal uplift could

be related to fault-related tectonic movements, strong historical earthquakes and a zone of

intense seismicity and faulting following the Büyük Menderes Graben (BMG) in western

Turkey. Archaeological data clearly supported such destructive earthquakes near both islands.

For example, the offset of the drums of the Heraion (6th c. BC) monumental temple in the

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Samos Island (Stiros, 1996) may be originated from a destructive earthquake (Stiros et al.,

2000).

In the Simav Graben, we obtained normal faulting mechanisms with small amount of strike-

slip components and shallow focal depths (10-15 km) (Fig. 5). Results represent the westward

motion of the Anatolian plate causing N-S extensional motion in western Turkey in

accordance with GPS velocity vectors. Earthquakes mostly show NE-SW trending T-axes

directions (Fig. 4). The May 19, 2011 Simav earthquake (Mw: 5.8) displays that the N-S

extentional regime in western Turkey is still active. We calculated the stress drop value to be

62 bars for this earthquake. It is comparatively higher than stress drop values calculated for

Gulfs of Gökova and Sığacık earthquakes (∆σ ~ 3-11 bars; Table 2). The intra-plate

earthquakes are characterized by higher stress drops (~ 100 bars) than inter-plate earthquakes

(~ 30 bars) which occur near plate boundaries (Kanamori and Anderson (1975). Thus, we

tentatively suggest that the 2011 Simav earthquake could be a type of intra-plate earthquake

(∆σ: 62 bars) while the earthquakes in Gulfs of Gökova and Sığacık reflect inter-plate

earthquake characteristics.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is a part of Ph.D. Thesis by Yolsal (2008). We would like to thank Đstanbul

Technical University (ĐTÜ), and Research Fund (ĐTÜ-BAP), TÜBĐTAK, Turkish Academy of

Sciences (TÜBA) in the framework for Young Scientist Award Program (TT-TÜBA-GEBIP

2001-2-17), and Alexander von Humboldt–Stiftung (AvH) for partial funding. We are

grateful to the Incorporated Research Institute of Seismology (IRIS) Wilber II for earthquake

data support, Yuji Yagi and Alessia Maggi for their supporting codes and accommodating

suggestions on computational approaches. Generic Mapping Tools (GMT; Wessel and Smith,

1998) and SAC2000 (Goldstein et al. 2003; Goldstein and Snoke, 2005) softwares were used

to prepare figures and to process the earthquake data, respectively. Careful reviews by the two

anonymous referees resulted in considerable improvement to an earlier version of this

manuscript. We are particularly indebted to the Editor-in-Chief Rob Govers for his judicious

insightful remarks.

APPENDIX

We presented an example of uncertainty tests on strike, dip rake angles and focal depth

belong to the August 04, 2004 Gulf of Gökova (Mw 5.4) earthquake (see Figs. A1 and A2).

We also illustrate the details of P- wave first motion polarity distributions of earthquakes

discussed individually in the text (see Figs. A3, A5 and A7)). Alternative best-fitting

waveform point-source solutions of these earthquakes obtained by using only teleseismic

broad-band P- waveforms are given in Figs. A4, A6 and A8. In addition, we list source

parameters of earthquakes which are previously reported by other studies and Harvard-CMT

moment tensor catalogues in Table A1.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

REFERENCES

Aki, K., 1972. Earthquake mechanism. Tectonophysics 13, 423–446.

Aki, K., Richards, P.G. 1980. Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York.

Aktar, M., Karabulut, H., Ozalaybey, S., Childs, D., 2007. A conjugate strike-slip fault system within the extensional tectonics of western Turkey. Geophysical Journal International 171 (3), 1363–1375.

Aktuğ, B., Kılıçoğlu, A., 2006. Recent crustal deformation of Đzmir, western Anatolia and surrounding regions as deduced from repeated GPS measurements and strain field. Journal of Geodynamics 41, 471-484.

Alçiçek, H. 2010. Stratigraphic correlations of the Neogene basins in southwestern Anatolia: regional paleogeographical, paleoclimatic and tectonic implications. Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 291, 297–318.

Ambraseys, N.N., White, D., 1997. The seismicity of the eastern Mediterranean region 550 Ð 1 BC: A re-appraisal. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1, 603-632.

Benetatos, C., Kiratzi, A., Papazachos, C. and Karakaisis, G., 2004. Focal mechanisms of shallow and intermediate depth earthquakes along Hellenic Arc. Journal of Geodynamics 37, 253-296.

Benetatos, C., Kiratzi, A., Ganas, A., Ziazia, A., Plessa, A., Drakatos, G., 2006. Strike-slip motions in the Gulf of Sığacık (western Anatolia): properties of the 17 October 2005 earthquake seismic sequence. Tectonophysics 426, 263–279.

Biryol, C.B., Beck, S.L., Zandt, G., Özacar, A.A., 2011. Segmented African lithosphere beneath the Anatolian region inferred from teleseismic P-wave tomography. Geophysical Journal International 184, 1037–1057.

Bozkurt, E., Park, R.G., 1994. Southern Menderes Massif; an incipient metamorphic core complex in western Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of the Geological Society, London 151, 213-216.

Çağlar, Đ., Duvarcı, E., 2001. Geoelectric structure of inland area of the Gökova rift, Southwest Anatolia and its tectonic implications. Journal of Geodynamics 31, 33-48.

Çifçi, G., Pamukçu, O., Çoruh, C., Çopur, S., Sözbilir, H., 2011. Shallow and Deep Structure of a Supradetachment Basin Based on Geological, Conventional Deep Seismic Reflection Sections and Gravity Data in the Buyuk Menderes Graben, western Anatolia. Survey Geophysics 32, 271–290.

de Boorder, H., Spakman, W., White, S.H., Wortel, M.J.R., 1998. Late Cenozoic mineralization, orogenic collapse and slab detachment in the European Alpine Belt. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 164, 569–575.

Dewey, J.F., Şengör, A.M.C., 1979. Aegean and surrounding regions: complex multiplate and continuous tectonics in a convergent zone. Geological Society of America Bulletin 90, 84–92.

Ergin, K., Güçlü, U., Uz, Z., 1967. Türkiye ve civarının deprem kataloğu. Đstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Maden Fakültesi Ofset Baskı Atölyesi, No:24.

Ersoy, E.Y., Helvacı, C., Palmer, M.R., 2012. Petrogenesis of the Miocene volcanism along the Đzmir-Balıkesir Transfer Zone in western Anatolia, Turkey: Implications for origin and

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

evolution of potassic volcanism in post-collisional areas. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241-242, 21–38.

Fichtner, A., Trampert, J., Cupillard, P., Saygin, E., Taymaz, T., Capdeville, Y., Villaseñor, A. 2013a. Multi-Scale Full Waveform Inversion. Geophysical Journal International 194 (1), 534-556.

Fichtner, A., Saygin, E., Taymaz, T., Cupillard, P., Capdevillee, Y., Trampert, J., 2013b. The Deep Structure of the North Anatolian Fault Zone. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 373, 109-117.

Fielding, E.J., Lundgren, P.R., Taymaz,T., Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., Owen, S.E., 2013a. Fault-Slip Source Models for the 2011 M7.1 Van Earthquake in Turkey from SAR Interferometry, Pixel Offset Tracking, GPS and Seismic Waveform Analysis. Seismological Research Letters 84 (4), 1-15, doi:10.1785/0220120164.

Fielding, E.J., Sladen, A., Li, Z., Avouac, J.-L., Bürgmann, R., Ryder, I., 2013b. Kinematic fault slip evolution source models of the 2008 M7.9 Wenchuan earthquake in China from SAR interferometry, GPS and teleseismic analysis and implications for Longmen Shan tectonics. Geophys. J. Int. 194 (2), 1138-1166, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggt155.

Fredrich, J., McCaffrey, R., Denham, D., 1988. Source parameters of seven large Australian earthquakes determined by body waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal 95, 1-13.

Futterman, W.I., 1962. Dispersive body waves. Journal of Geophysical Research 67, 5279-5291.

Goldstein, P., Dodge, D., Firpo, M., Minner, L., 2003. SAC2000: Signal processing and analysis tools for seismologists and engineers, Invited contribution to The IASPEI International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Edited by WHK Lee, H. Kanamori, P.C. Jennings, and C. Kisslinger, Academic Press, London.

Goldstein, P., Snoke, A., 2005. SAC Availability for the IRIS Community, Incorporated Institutions for Seismology Data Management Center Electronic Newsletter.

Görür, N., Şengör, A.M.C., Sakınç, M., Tüysüz, O., Akkok, R., Yiğitbaş, E., Oktay, F.Y., Barka, A., Sarıca, N., Ecevitoğlu, B., Demirbağ, E., Ersoy, S., Algan, O., Güneysu, C., Aykol, A., 1995. Rift formation in the Gökova region, southwest Anatolia: implications for the opening of the Aegean Sea. Geological Magazine 132, 637–50.

Guidoboni, E., Comastri, A., Triana, G., 1994. Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th century. Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica, Rome.

Gürer, Ö.F., Bozcu, M., Yılmaz, K. ve Yılmaz, Y., 2001. Neogene basin development around Söke-Kuşadası (western Anatolia) and its bearing on tectonic development of the Aegean region. Geodinamica Acta, 14, 57-69.

Gürer, Ö.F., Sanğu, E., Özburan, M., Gürbüz, A., Sarica-Filoreau, N., 2013. Complex basin evolution in the Gökova Gulf region: implications on the Late Cenozoic tectonics of southwest Turkey. Int J Earth Sci, doi: 10.1007/s00531-013-0909-1.

Gürçay, S., Çifçi, G., Dondurur, D., Sözbilir, H., Coşkun, S., Küçük, H.M., Sarıtaş, H., 2012. Active tectonics of Gulf of Sığacık (western Anatolia) and surrounding area by multi channel seismic and chirp data: evidence for submarine active faults occurred during 17 October 2005 Sığacık earthquake. International Earth Science Colloquium on the Aegean Region, 01-05 October 2012, Đzmir, Turkey.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Hartzell, S.H., Heaton, T.H., 1983. Inversion of strong ground motion and teleseismic waveform data for fault rupture history of the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 73, 1553-1583.

Helvacı, C., Ersoy, Y., Sözbilir, H., Erkül, F., Sümer, Ö., Uzel, B., 2009. Geochemistry and 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of Miocene volcanic rocks from the Karaburun Peninsula: Implications for amphibole-bearing lithospheric mantle source, Western Anatolia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 185, 181–202.

Işık, V., Tekeli, O., 2001. Late orogenic crustal extension in the northern Menderes Massif (western Turkey): evidence for metamorphic core complex formation. International Journal of Earth Sciences 89, 757-765.

Işık, V., Seyitoğlu, G., Çemen, Đ., 2003. Ductile–brittle transition along the Alasehir detachment fault and its structural relationship with the Simav detachment fault, Menderes massif, western Turkey. Tectonophysics 374, 1-18.

Đlkışık, O.M., 1995. Regional heat flow in western Anatolia using silica temperature estimates from thermal springs. Tectonophysics 244 (1–3), 175–184.

Đşcan, Y., Tur, H., Gökaşan, E., 2013. Morphologic and seismic features of the Gulf of Gökova, SW Anatolia: evidence of strike-slip faulting with compression in the Aegean extensional regime. Geo-Mar Lett. 33, 31–48.

Jackson, J.A., McKenzie, D., 1984. Active tectonics of the Alpine–Himalayan belt between western Turkey and Pakistan. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 77, 185–264.

Jackson, J., Priestley, K., Allen, M., Berberian, M., 2002. Active tectonics of the South Caspian Basin. Geophysical Journal International 148, 214-245.

Jeffreys, H., Bullen, K.E., 1940, 1958. Seismological tables. Office of the British Association, Burlington House, London.

Jolivet, L., Faccenna, C., Huet, B., Labrousse, L., Le Pourhiet, L., Lacombe, O., Lecomte, E., Burov, E., Denèle, Y., Brun, J.P., Philippon, M., Paul, A., Salaün, G., Karabulut, H., Piromallo, C., Monié, P., Gueydan, F., Okay, A.I., Oberhänsli, R., Pourteau, A., Augier, R., Gadenne, L., Driussi, O., 2012. Aegean tectonics: Strain localisation, slab tearing and trench retreat. Tectonophysics, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2012.06.011.

Kalafat, D., Horasan, G., 2012. A seismological view to Gökova region at southwestern Turkey. International Journal of the Physical Sciences 7(30), 5143-5153.

Kanamori, H., 1994. Mechanics of earthquakes. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 22, 207–237.

Kanamori, H., Anderson, D.L., 1975. Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 65 (5), 1073-1095.

Karaoğlu, Ö., Helvacı, C., 2012. Structural evolution of the Uşak-Güre-supra-detachment basin during Miocene extensional denudation in western Turkey. Journal of the Geololgical Society, London 169 (5), 627-642.

Kikuchi, M., Kanamori, H., 1991. Inversion of complex body waves – III. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 81, 2335-2350.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kissel, C., Laj, C., Mazaud, A., Poisson, A., Savaşçın, Y., Simeakis, K., Mercier, J.L., 1986. Palaeomagnetic evidence for Neogene rotational deformations in the Aegean domain. Tectonics 5, 783-795.

KOERI, 2005. Bogazici University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute: 17-21 October 2005 Sığacık Gulf-Seferihisar (Đzmir) Earthquakes Report, http://udim.koeri.boun.edu.tr/.

KOERI, 2011. Bogazici University Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute: Simav Earthquake Report, http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/raporlar

Kokhetsu, K., 1985. The extended reflectivity method for synthetic near-field seismograms, J. Phys. Earth 33, 121-131.

Kokkalas, S., Aydın, A., 2013. Is there a link between faulting and magmatism in the south-central Aegean Sea? Geol. Mag. 150 (2), 193-224.

Koravos, G. Ch., Main, I.G., Tsapanos, T.M., Musson, R.M.W, 2003. Maximum earthquake magnitudes in the Aegean area constrained by tectonic moment release rates, Geophysical Journal International 152, 94-112.

Kurt, H., Demirbağ, E., Kuşcu, Đ., 1999. Investigation of submarine active tectonism in the Gulf of Gökova, southwest Anatolia - SE Aegean Sea, by multi-channel seismic reflection data. Tectonophysics 305, 477-496.

Laigle, M., Sachpazi, M., Hirn, A., 2004. Variation of seismic coupling with slab detachment and upper plate structure along the western Hellenic subduction zone. Tectonophysics 391, 85-95.

Le Pichon, X., Angelier, J., 1979. The Hellenic arc and trench system: a key to the neotectonic evolution of the eastern Mediterranean area. Tectonophysics 60, 1–42.

Lykousis, V., Anagnostou, C., Pavlakis, P., Rousakis, G., Alexandi, M., 1995. Quaternary sedimentary history and neotectonic evolution of the eastern part of Central Aegean Sea, Greece. Mar. Geol. 128, 59– 71.

Louvari, E., 2000. A detailed seismotectonic analysis of the Aegean and the surrounding area. PhD Thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 374 pp.

Maggi, A., Jackson, J.A., Priestly, K., Baker, C., 2000. A re-assessment of focal distributions in southern Iran, the Tien Shan and northern India: do earthquakes really occur in the continental mantle? Geophysical Journal International 143, 629-661.

Makris, J., Stobbe, C., 1984. Physical properties and state of the crust and upper mantle of the Eastern Mediterranean sea deduced from geophysical data. Marine Geology 55, 347-363.

Mariolakos, I., Papanikolaou, D., 1981. The Neogene basins of the Aegean arc from the paleogeographic and the geodynamic point of view. H.E.A.T. Symposium Proceedings, vol. 1, Athens, pp. 383±399.

Mascle, J., Martin, L., 1990. Shallow structure and recent evolution of the Aegean Sea: a synthesis based on continuous reflection profiles. Marine Geology 94, 271-299.

McCaffrey, R., Abers, G., 1988. SYN3: A program for inversion teleseismic body waveforms on microcomputers. Air force Geophysics Laboratory Technical Report, AFGI-TR-88-0099, Hanscomb Air Force Base, MA, 50 pp.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

McCaffrey, R. and Nábĕlek, J.L., 1987. Earthquakes, gravity, and the origin of the Bali Basin: an example of a nascent continental fold-and-thrust belt. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 441-460.

McCaffrey, R., Zwick, P. and Abers, G., 1991. SYN4 Program. IASPEI Software Library 3, 81-166.

McClusky, S., Balassanian, S., Barka, A., Demir, C., Ergintav, S., Georgiev, I., Gürkan, O., Hamburger, M., Hurst, K., Kahle, H., Kastens, K., Kekelidze, G., King, R., Kotzev, V., Lenk, O., Mahmoud, S., Mishin, A., Nadariya, M., Ouzounis, A., Paradissis, D., Peter, Y., Prilepin, M., Reilinger, R., Şanlı, I., Seeger, H., Tealeb, A., Toksöz, M.N., Veis, G., 2000. Global positioning system constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. Journal of Geophysical Research 105, 5695–5719.

McClusky, S., Reilinger, R., Mahmoud, S., Ben Sari, D., Tealeb, A., 2003. GPS constraints on Africa (Nubia) and Arabia plate motions. Geophys. J. Int. 155 (1): 126-138.

McKenzie, D.P., 1972. Active tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Geophys. J. of Royal Astr. Soc. 30, 109-185.

Molnar, P., Lyon‐Caen, H., 1989. Fault plane solutions of earthquakes and active tectonics of the Tibetan Plateau and its margins, Geophysical Journal International 99, 123–154.

Nàbělek, J., 1984. Determination of earthquake source parameters from inversion of body waves. PhD Thesis M.I.T., Massachusetts, USA.

Ocakoğlu, N., 2012. Investigation of Fethiye-Marmaris Bay (SW Anatolia): seismic and morphologic evidences from the missing link between the Pliny Trench and the Fethiye-Burdur Fault Zone. Geo-Mar Lett 32 (1), 17–28.

Ocakoğlu, N., Demirbağ, E., Kuscu, Đ., 2004. Neotectonic structures in the area offshore of Alacati, Doganbey and Kusadasi (western Turkey): Evidence of strike-slip faulting in the Aegean extensional province. Tectonophysics 391, 67– 83.

Okay, A.I., Satır, M., Maluski, H., Siyako, M., Monie, P., Metzger, R., Akyüz, S., 1996. Paleoand Neo-Tethyan events in northwest Turkey: geological and geochronological constraints. In: Yin, A., Harrison, M. (Eds.), Tectonics of Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 420–441.

Özkaymak, Ç, Sözbilir, H., Uzel, B., 2011. Geological and palaeoseismological evidence for late Pleistocene-Holocene activity on the Manisa Fault Zone, western Anatolia. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 20, 1–26.

Pavlides, S., Chatziperos, A., Michailidou, A., Yağmurlu, F., Özgür, N., Kamacı, Z., Şentürk, M., 2009. Geological indications for active deformation along Fethiye and Gökova faults, SW Turkey. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 11, European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly 2009, Vienna, Austria.

Piper, J.D.A., Gürsoy, H., Tatar, O., Beck, M.E., Rao, A., Koçbulut, F., Mesci, B.L., 2010. Distributed neotectonic deformation in the Anatolides of Turkey: A palaeomagnetic analysis. Tectonophysics 488, 31-50.

Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Paradissis, D., Ergintav, S., Vernant, P., 2010. Geodetic constraints on the tectonic evolution of the Aegean region and strain accumulation along the Hellenic subduction zone. Tectonophysics 488, 22–30.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Ring, U., Gessner, K., Güngör, T., Passchier, C.W., 1999. The Menderes massif of western Turkey and the Cycladic massif in the Aegean: do they really correlate? Journal of the Geological Society of London 156, 3–6.

Rontogianni, S., Konstantinou, K.I., Evangelidis, C., Melis, N.S., 2011. Investigating potential seismic hazard in the Gulf of Gökova (South Eastern Aegean Sea) deduced from recent shallow earthquake activity. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2011, T43E-2427, San Francisco, USA.

Sarı, C., Şalk, M., 2006. Sediment thicknesses of the western Anatolia graben structures determined by 2D and 3D analysis using gravity data. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 26, 39-48.

Saunders, P., Priestley, K., Taymaz, T., 1998. Variations in the crustal structure beneath western Turkey. Geophysical Journal International-Oxford 134, 373-389.

Seyitoğlu, G., Işık, V., Çemen, I., 2004. Complete Tertiary history of the Menderes masif, western Turkey: an alternative working hypothesis. Terra Nova 16 (6), 358-364.

Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997a. Measured and estimated seafloor topography (version 4.2). World Data Centre-A for Marine Geology and Geophysics research publication RP-1, poster, 34" x 53".

Smith, W.H.F., Sandwell, D.T., 1997b. Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings. Science 277, 1957-1962.

Sözbilir, H., Sümer, Ö., Uzel, B., Ersoy, Y., Erkül, F., Đnci, U., Helvacı, C., Özkaymak, Ç., 2009. The Seismic geomorphology of the Sığacık Gulf (Đzmir) earthquakes of October 17 to 20, 2005 and their relationships with the stress field of their western Anatolian region. Geological Bulletin of Turkey 52(2), 217-238.

Stiros, S., 1996. Identification of Earthquakes from Archaeological Data: Criteria, Limitations and Pitfalls. In: Stiros, S., Jones, R. (Eds.). Archaeoseismology, Fitch Laboratory, Oxford, pp. 129-152.

Stiros, S.C. 2000. Fault pattern of Nisyros Island volcano (Aegean Sea, Greece): structural, coastal and archaeological evidence. In: McGuire, W.J., Griffiths, D.R., Hancock, P.L., Stewart, I.S. (eds), The Archaeology of Geological Catastrophes. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 171, 385-399.

Stiros, S.C, Laborel, J., Laborel-Deuen, F., Papageorgiou, S., Evin, J., Pirazzoli, P.A., 2000. Seismic coastal uplift in a region of subsidence: Holocene raised shorelines of Samos Island, Aegean Sea, Greece. Mar. Geol. 170, 41-58.

Stiros, S.C., Laborel, J., Laborel-Deguen, F., Morhange, C., 2011. Quaternary and Holocene coastal uplift in Ikaria Island, Aegean Sea. Geodinamica Acta 24 (3-4), 123-131.

Sümer, Ö., Đnci, U., Sözbilir, H., 2013. Tectonic evolution of the Söke Basin: Extension-dominated transtensional basin formation in western part of the Büyük Menderes Graben, western Anatolia, Turkey. Journal of Geodynamics 65, 148-175.

Şaroğlu, F., Emre, Ö., Kuşçu, Đ. 1992. Active Fault Map of Turkey, 2 sheets, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration-GDMRAE, Ankara, Turkey.

Tan, O., 2013. The dense micro-earthquake activity at the boundary between the Anatolian and South Aegean microplates. Journal of Geodynamics 65, 199-217.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Tan, O., Taymaz, T., 2003. Seismotectonics of Karaburun Peninsula and Kuşadası Gulf: Source parameters of April 2, 1996 Kuşadası Gulf and April 10, 2003 Seferihisar (Đzmir) earthquakes. International Workshop on the NAFZ, EAFZ and DSF Systems: Recent Progress in Tectonics and Paleoseismology and Field Training Course in Paleoseismology, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey.

Tan, O., Taymaz, T., 2006. Active tectonics of the Caucasus: Earthquake Source Mechanisms and Rupture Histories Obtained from Inversion of Teleseismic Body Waveforms. In: Post-collisional Tectonics and Magmatism in the Mediterranean Region and Asia. Geological Society of America Special Paper 409, 531-578.

Taymaz, T., Price, S.P., 1992. The 12.05.1971 Burdur earthquake sequence: a synthesis of seismological and geological observations. Geophysical Journal International 108, 589–603.

Taymaz, T., Jackson, J., Westaway, R., 1990. Earthquake mechanisms in the Hellenic Trench near Crete. Geophysical Journal International 102, 695-731.

Taymaz, T., Jackson, J., McKenzie, D., 1991. Active tectonics of the north and central Aegean Sea. Geophysical Journal International 106, 433–490.

Taymaz, T., Westaway, R., Reilinger, R., 2004a. Active Faulting and Crustal Deformation in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Special Issue of Tectonophysics, 391 (1-4), 375 pp, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2004.07.005.

Taymaz, T., Tan, O., Yolsal, S., 2004b. Seismotectonics of western Turkey: A Synthesis of Source Parameters and Rupture Histories of Recent Earthquakes. EOS Transactions AGU, 85 (47), Fall Meeting Suppl., p.408, Moscone Convention Center, San Fransisco-California, USA, December 13–17, 2004.

Taymaz, T., Yılmaz, Y., Dilek, Y., 2007a. The Geodynamics of the Aegean and Anatolia: Introduction. The Geological Society of London, Special Publications Book 291, 1-16, ISBN: 978-1-86239-239-7.

Taymaz, T., Wright, T.J., Yolsal, S., Tan, O., Fielding, E., Seyitoğlu, G., 2007b. Source characteristics of the 6 June 2000 Orta – Çankırı (central Turkey) earthquake: a synthesis of seismological, geological and geodetic (InSAR) observations, and internal deformation of the Anatolian plate. In: The Geodynamics of the Aegean and Anatolia, Geological Society, London, Special Publication 291, 259-290.

Ten veen, J.H., Boulton, S.J., Alçiçek, M.C. 2009. From palaeotectonics to neotectonics in the Neotethys realm: the importance of kinematic decoupling and inherited structural grain in SW Anatolia (Turkey). Tectonophysics 473, 261–281.

Uluğ, A., Duman, M., Ersoy, Ş., Özel, E., Avcı, M. 2005. Late Quaternary sea-level change, sedimentation and neotectonics of the Gulf of Gökova: Southeastern Aegean Sea. Marine Geology 221, 381–395.

Uzel, B., Sözbilir, H., 2008. A first record of a strike–slip basin in western Anatolia and its tectonic implication: the Cumaovası Basin. Turkish Journal of Earth Science 17, 559–591.

Uzel, B., Sözbilir, H., Özkaymak, Ç., Kaymakçı, N., Langereis, C.G., 2013. Structural evidence for strike-slip deformation in the Đzmir–Balıkesir transfer zone and consequences for late Cenozoic evolution of western Anatolia (Turkey). Journal of Geodynamics, 65, 94-116.

Vanacore, E.A, Taymaz, T., Saygin, E., 2013. Moho Structure of the Anatolian Plate from Receiver Function Analysis. Geophysical Journal International 193 (1), 329-337.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

van Hinsbergen, D.J.J., Kaymakci, N., Spakman, W., Torsvik, T.H., 2010. Reconciling the geological history of western Turkey with plate circuits and mantle tomography. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 297, 674–686.

Wessel, P., Smith, W.H.F., 1998. New, improved version of the Generic Mapping Tools released. EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 79, 579.

Wortel, M.J.R., Spakman,W., 2000. Subduction and slab detachment in the Mediterranean–Carpathian region. Science 290, 1910–1917.

Wright, T. J., Parsons, B.E., Jackson, J.A., Haynes, M., Fielding, E.J., England, P.C., Clarke, P.J., 1999. Source parameters of the 1 October 1995 Dinar (Turkey) earthquake from SAR interferometry and seismic bodywave modelling. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 172, 23–37.

Yagi, Y., Kikuchi, M., 2000. Source rupture process of the Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake of August 17, 1999, obtained by joint inversion of near-field data and teleseismic data. Geophysical Research Letters 27, 1969-1972.

Yagi, Y., Kikuchi, M., Nishimura, T., 2003. Co-seismic slip, post-seismic slip, and largest aftershock associated with the 1994 Sanriku – Haruka-Oki, Japan, earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters 30, doi: 10.1029/2003GL018189.

Yagi, Y., Mikumo, T., Pacheo, J., 2004. Source rupture process of the Tecoman, Colima, Mexico earthquake of January 22, 2003, determined by joint inversion of teleseismic body wave and near-field data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 94 (5), 1795-1807.

Yagi, Y., Nakao, A., Kasahara, A., 2012a. Smooth and rapid slip near the Japan Trench during the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake revealed by a hybrid back-projection method, Earth Planetary Science Letters 355, 94–101.

Yagi, Y., Nishimura, N., Kasahara, A., 2012b. Source process of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan, China, earthquake determined by waveform inversion of teleseismic body waves with a data covariance matrix. Earth Planets Space 64, E13–E16.

Yılmaz, Y., Genç, Ş.C., Gürer, F., Bozcu, M., Yılmaz, K., Karacık, Z., Altunkaynak, Ş., Elmas, A., 2000. When did the western Anatolia grabens begin to develop? Geological Society, London, Special Publications 173, 353-384.

Yolsal, S., 2008. Source Mechanism Parameters and Slip Distributions of Crete-Cyprus Arcs, Dead Sea Transform Fault Earthquakes and Historical Tsunami Simulations. PhD Thesis, 523 pages, Graduate School of Institute of Science and Technology, Đstanbul Technical University, November 2008, Đstanbul, Turkey.

Yolsal, S., Taymaz, T., 2010a. Source mechanism parameters of Gulf of Gökova earthquakes and tsunami risk in the Rodos-Dalaman region. ĐTÜ Dergisi/d 9(3), 53-65, Đstanbul Technical University, Đstanbul.

Yolsal, S., Taymaz, T., 2010b. Sensitivity analysis on relations between earthquake source rupture parameters and far-field tsunami waves: case studies in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 19, 313–349.

Yolsal, S., Taymaz, T., Yalçıner, A.C., 2007. Understanding tsunamis, potential source regions and tsunami prone mechanisms in the Eastern Mediterranean. In: Taymaz, T., Yılmaz, Y., Dilek, Y., (Eds.) The Geodynamics of the Aegean and Anatolia, Geological Society, London, Special Publications 291, 201-230.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., Taymaz, T., 2012. Earthquake source parameters along the Hellenic subduction zone and numerical simulations of historical tsunamis in the Eastern Mediterranean. Tectonophysics 536–537, 61-100.

Yolsal-Çevikbilen, S., Biryol, C.B., Beck, S., Zandt, G., Taymaz, T., Adıyaman, H.E., Özacar, A.A., 2012. 3-D crustal structure along the North Anatolian Fault Zone in north-central Anatolia revealed by local earthquake tomography. Geophysical Journal International 188, 819-849.

Yoshida, S., 1992. Waveform inversion for rupture process using a non-flat seafloor model: application to 1986 Andreanof Islands and 1985 Chile earthquakes. Tectonophysics 211, 45-59.

Yoshida, S., Kokhetsu, K., Shibazaki, B., Sagiya, T., Kato, T., Yoshida, Y., 1996. Joint inversion of near- and far-field waveforms and geodetic data for rupture process of the 1995 Kobe earthquake. J. Phys. Earth 44, 437-454.

Zwick, P., McCaffrey, R., Abers, G., 1994. MT5 Program. IASPEI Software Library, Volume 4.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1. Active tectonics of western Anatolia and Aegean region. Earthquake data (M > 5.0) are taken from USGS-NEIC (1973-2012). Black arrows show plate motions in the region (McClusky et al. 2000, 2003). Topography and bathymetry data are taken from NASA-SRTM3 and Smith and Sandwell (1997a,b), respectively. Rectangular boxes refer to the regions discussed in the text. Abbreviations: Am: Amorgos, AB: Aksu Thrust, Ch: Chios, BMG: Büyük Menderes Graben, CTF: Cephalonia Transform Fault, FBFZ: Fethiye-Burdur Fault Zone, G: Gökova, Ge: Gediz, IA: Isparta Angle, Ik: Ikaria, K: Karpathos, L: Lesvos, Mi: Milos, My: Mykonos, Nx: Naxos, Ny: Nisyros, Rh: Rhodes, RTF: Rhodes Transform Fault, Si: Simav, Sm: Samos, Sn: Santorini, SF: Sultandağı Fault, T: Tinos, TF:Tatarlı Fault, (Yolsal et al. 2007; Yolsal-Çevikbilen et al., 2012).

Figure 2. Seismicity of the Gulf of Gökova with USGS-NEIC (M > 3; 1973-2013) epicenters Black arrows show GPS vectors reported by McClusky et al. (2000, 2003).

Figure 3. Landsat 7 (~28 m) GeoCover image (upper) and seismicity of Gulf of Sığacık and Kuşadası region with USGS-NEIC (M > 3; 1973-2013). BMG: Büyük Menderes Graben; GF: Gülbahçe Fault, IF: Đzmir Fault SF: Seferihisar Fault, KMG: Küçük Menderes Graben, TF: Tuzla Fault. Black arrows show GPS vectors reported by McClusky et al. (2000, 2003).

Figure 4. Seismicity of Simav Graben and surrounding region with USGS-NEIC (M > 3; 1973-2013) epicentres, and focal mechanism solutions of earthquakes (Mw ≥ 5.0). Red, blue and black focal spheres indicate earthquake source mechanisms obtained by this study, previous studies (Tan and Taymaz, 2003; Taymaz et al., 2004b) and Harvard-CMT catalogue, respectively. Stars and thick arrows show earthquake epicenters and T-axes directions calculated from source mechanism solutions, respectively.

Figure 5. a) Schematic view of earth structure model used for calculating Green’s functions of teleseismic body waveforms (Nàbělek, 1984); b) fault orientation parameters (strike (φ), dip (δ) and rake angles (λ); Aki and Richards, 1980); c) Parameterization of faulting area in finite-source slip modeling method. The star shows the initiation of rupture propagation. The rupture in each cell starts after Tmn time delay and slip rate function is defined by L iscosceles triangles that have a rise time τ in seconds. Two components of slip vector with rakes slip0 ± 45 (Yagi and Kikuchi 2000; Yagi et al., 2003, 2004, 2012a,b; Tan and Taymaz, 2006; Yolsal-Çevikbilen and Taymaz, 2012).

Figure 6. Focal mechanism solutions of Gulf of Gökova earthquakes. Black and gray focal spheres indicate source mechanisms obtained by this study and the previous studies (McKenzie, 1972; Taymaz et al., 2004b; Harvard CMT moment tensor catalogues), respectively. Seismicity is taken from USGS-NEIC (1973 – 2013) earthquake catalog. Stars and black arrows show earthquake epicenters and T-axes directions calculated from source mechanism solutions, respectively.

Figure 7. Focal mechanism solutions of Gulfs of Sığacık and Kuşadası earthquakes. Red, blue and black focal spheres indicate source mechanisms obtained by this study, Taymaz et al., (2004b) and Harvard CMT moment tensor catalogues, respectively. Stars and black arrows show earthquake epicenters and T-axes directions calculated from source mechanism solutions, respectively.

Figure 8a. The radiation patterns and synthetic waveform fits for the minimum misfit solution obtained from the point-source inversion of the August 04, 2004 Gulf of Gökova earthquake (Mw: 5.4); dashed lines, fits to all long-period 34 P- and 9 SH- waveforms, solid lines, used in the inversion. Beneath the header at the top of the figure that shows the date and moment magnitude, are given the strike, dip, and rake angles of the first and second nodal

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

planes (NP), focal depth (h), and seismic moment (Mo). The source time function (STF) is shown in the middle of the figure, and beneath it is the time scale used for the waveforms. Focal spheres are shown with P- (top) and SH- (bottom) nodal planes in lower hemisphere projections. The vertical bar beneath the focal spheres shows the waveform displacement scale in microns, with the lowercase letter identifying the instrument type (d: GDSN long-period). Station positions are indicated by letter and are arranged alphabetically clockwise, starting from north. The P and T axes are marked by solid and open circles, respectively. Distribution of P- wave first motion polarities is also shown at the left side of the figure. Filled circles are compressional first motions; opens are dilatational.

Figure 8b. Comparison of our best-fitting point source solution with the source parameters reported by ZUR-RMT, USGS-NEIC, Harvard- CMT and MED-RCMT earthquake catalogues. The top row shows the selected waveforms from the minimum misfit solution. The stations are identified at the top of each column, with the type of waveform marked by P- and SH- and followed by the instrument type (d: long-period). At the start of each row are the P- and SH-focal spheres for the focal parameters represented by the five numbers (strike, dip, rake, depth and seismic moment), showing the positions on the focal spheres of the stations. X show matches of observed to synthetic waveforms that are worse than in the minimum misfit solution.

Figure 8c. Focal mechanism, co-seismic slip distribution, and total moment rate function of the August 04, 2004 Gulf of Gökova earthquake (Mw: 5.4) earthquake from teleseismic broadband body-wave finite-fault inversion. The strike, dip, and rake angles of the first and second nodal planes (NP) and focal depth obtained from minimum-misfit point-source solution are given in the header. Slip model is derived on NP1; the white star indicates the focal depth obtained from minimum misfit solution. The vertical scale given on the right-hand side shows the displacement values in meters.

Figure 8d. Comparison of the observed (black) and synthetic (red) broadband P waveforms used in slip-distribution inversion. Station code and maximum amplitude are shown above the waveforms, station azimuth, and distance below.

Figure 9a. The radiation patterns and synthetic waveform fits for the minimum misfit solution obtained from the point-source inversion of the October 20, 2005 Gulf of Sığacık earthquake (Mw: 5.7); dashed lines, fits to all long-period 19 P- and 22 SH-waveforms, solid lines, used in the inversion. Header information is as in Fig. 8a.

Figure 9b. Comparison of our minimum misfit solution with the source parameters reported by Harvard- CMT, USGS-NEIC and Benetatos et al. (2006). X show matches of observed to synthetic waveforms that are worse than in the minimum misfit solution. Header information is as in Fig. 8b.

Figure 9c. Focal mechanism, co-seismic slip distribution and total moment rate function of the October 20, 2005 Gulf of Sığacık earthquake (Mw: 5.7) from teleseismic broadband body-wave finite-fault inversion and comparison of the observed (black) and synthetic (red) broad-band P-waveforms used in finite-fault slip distribution inversion. Header information is as in Figs.8c,d.

Figure 10a. The radiation patterns and synthetic waveform fits for the minimum misfit solution obtained from the point-source inversion of the May 19, 2011 Simav earthquake (Mw: 5.8); dashed lines, fits to all long-period 28 P- and 3 SH-waveforms, solid lines, used in the inversion Header information is as in Fig. 8a.

Figure 10b. Comparison of our best-fitting waveform point source solution with the source parameters reported by USGS-RMT, KOERI, Harvard- CMT, USGS-GCMT and USGS-W

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Phase. X and √√√√ show matches of observed to synthetic waveforms that are worse and better than in the minimum misfit solution, respectively. Header information is as in Fig. 8b.

Figure 10c. Focal mechanism, co-seismic slip distribution and total moment rate function of the May 19, 2011 Simav earthquake (Mw: 5.8). Header information is as in Fig.8c.

Figure 10d. Comparison of the observed (black) and synthetic (red) broad-band P-waveforms used in finite-fault slip distribution inversion. Header information is as in Fig.8d.

APPENDIX FIGURES

Figure A1. An example of uncertainty tests for strike and dip angles of the August 04, 2004 Gulf of Gökova (Mw: 5.4) earthquake. The top row shows selected waveforms from the minimum misfit solution. The stations are identified at the top of each column, with the type of waveform marked by P- and SH- and followed by the instrument type. At the start of each row are the P and SH focal spheres for the focal parameters represented by the five numbers (strike, dip, rake, depth and seismic moment), showing the positions on the focal spheres of the stations chosen. X and √√√√ show match of observed to synthetic waveforms that are worse and better than in the minimum misfit solution. Fixed strike and dip angles are marked by *.

Figure A2. An example of uncertainty tests for rake angle and focal depth of the August 04, 2004 Gulf of Gökova (Mw: 5.4) earthquake. Fixed rake angle and focal depth are marked by *. Header information is as in Fig. A1.

Figure A3. Distribution of P-wave first motion polarities of the August 04, 2004 Gulf of Gökova (Mw: 5.4) earthquake recorded by seismic stations at teleseismic and regional distances. Lower hemisphere equal area projections are used. The station positions have been plotted with the same velocity model beneath the source used in our minimum misfit solution. Both nodal planes are those of the minimum misfit solution. Station names and epicentral distances are given near example waveforms. Filled circles are compressional first motions, opens are dilatational.

Figure A4. An alternative minimum misfit solution of the August 04, 2004 Gulf of Gökova (Mw: 5.4) earthquake determined by teleseismic broad-period P- waveform inversion. Header information is as in Fig. 8a.

Figure A5. Distribution of P-wave first motion polarities of the October 20, 2005 Gulf of Sığacık (Mw: 5.7) earthquake recorded by seismic stations at teleseismic and regional distances. Header information is as in Fig. A3.

Figure A6. An alternative minimum misfit solution of the October 20, 2005 Gulf of Sığacık (Mw: 5.7) earthquake determined by teleseismic broad-period P- waveform inversion. Header information is as in Fig. 8a.

Figure A7. Distribution of P-wave first motion polarities of the May 19, 2011 Simav (Mw: 5.8) earthquake recorded by seismic stations at teleseismic and regional distances. Header information is as in Fig. A3.

Figure A8. An alternative minimum misfit solution of the May 19, 2011 Simav (Mw: 5.8) earthquake determined by teleseismic broad-period P- waveform inversion. Header information is as in Fig. 8a.

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TABLE CAPTIONS

Table 1. Earthquake source parameters with error limits obtained from teleseismic P- and SH- waveform inversion and uncertainty tests. Epicentral locations are taken from ISC earthquake catalogue except for the earthquake marked by * (USGS-NEIC). Mo: seismic moment, to: origin time, Mw: moment magnitude, h: focal depth obtained from teleseismic modeling.

Table 2. Dynamic fault parameters obtained from finite-fault slip distribution modeling. Mo: seismic moment, L: fault length, W: fault width, S: faulting area, Dmax: maximum displacement, Dav: average displacement, ∆σ: stress drop.

Table A1. Source parameters of Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık, Kuşadası, and Simav graben earthquakes reported by previous studies. MK72: McKenzie (1972); HRV: Harvard – CMT moment tensor catalogue, T04: Taymaz, Tan and Yolsal (2004), W99: Wright et al. (1999). Lat: Latitute (°N), Lon: Longitude (°E), φ: strike angle, δ: dip angle, λ: rake angle (see Figure 5b), Mo: Seismic Moment (Newton – meter), h: focal depth (km). For earthquake magnitude, w, b and s represent moment, body-wave and surface wave magnitudes, respectively. Epicenter locations are taken from ISC earthquake catalogue except for earthquakes marked by * (USGS-NEIC).

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

33

Table 1.

Date (d. m. y)

Origin time (to)

(h: m :s)

Lat. (°N)

Lon. (°E)

Mw

Strike

(φ, °)

Dip (δ, °)

Rake

(λ, °)

h (km

)

M o (××××101

6 Nm)

Location

27.04.1989 23:06:5

2 37.0

3 28.1

6 5.1 102 ±

10°

33 ±

10°

-65 ± 10°

14 ± 2

6.55 Gökova

28.04.1989 13:30:1

9 37.0

2 28.1

0 5.4 102 ±

10°

32 ±

10°

-96 ± 10°

8 ± 2

14.97 Gökova

05.10.1999 00:53:2

7 36.7

5 28.2

3 5.3 72 ±

10°

48 ±

10°

-65 ± 10°

14 ± 2

11.54 Gökova

03.08.2004 13:11:3

0 36.8

5 27.7

7 5.1 67 ±

10°

39 ± 5°

-99 ± 10°

11 ± 2

4.987 Gökova

04.08.2004 03:01:0

5 36.8

3 27.7

6 5.4 61 ±

10°

38 ± 5°

-103 ±

10°

9 ± 2

14.35 Gökova

04.08.2004 04:19:4

6 36.8

3 27.8

1 5.3 71 ±

10°

34 ± 5°

-97 ± 10°

13 ± 2

10.16 Gökova

04.08.2004 14:18:4

8 36.8

4 27.7

8 5.2 66 ±

10°

39 ± 5°

-109 ±

10°

8 ± 2

8.888 Gökova

20.12.2004 23:02:1

4 36.9

3 28.3

6 5.3 60 ±

10°

50 ± 5°

-107 ±

10°

8 ± 2

10.32 Gökova

10.01.2005 23:48:4

9 36.8

5 27.9

2 5.2 81 ±

10°

34 ± 5°

-89 ± 10°

8 ± 2

8.617 Gökova

11.01.2005 04:35:5

6 36.8

9 27.8

7 5.2 59 ±

10°

38 ±

10°

-102 ±

10°

10 ± 2

8.585 Gökova

17.10.2005 05:45:1

6 38.1

3 26.5

0 5.4 234 ±

10°

72 ±

10°

180 ±

10°

14 ± 2

14.25 Sığacık

17.10.2005 09:46:5

3 38.2

0 26.5

0 5.7 233 ±

10°

79 ±

10°

179 ±

10°

9 ± 2

46.45 Sığacık

20.10.2005 21:40:0

4 38.1

5 26.7

5 5.7 224 ±

10°

81±

10°

182 ±

10°

10 ± 2

50.76 Sığacık

19.05.2011*

20:15:24

39.10

29.09

5.8 287 ± 5°

58 ± 5°

-94 ± 5°

9 ± 2

68 Simav

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

34

Table 2.

Date (d.m.y)

Location M o

(××××1016 Nm)

L (km)

W (km)

S (km2)

Dmax

(cm) Dav

(cm) ∆∆∆∆σσσσ

(bar)

04.08.2004 Gökova 11.23 10 9 90 10 4.2 3 04.08.2004 Gökova 5.62 5 5 25 20 7.5 11 20.12.2004 Gökova 6.51 6 5 30 20 7.2 10 10.01.2005 Gökova 8.1 6 6 36 30 7.5 9 11.01.2005 Gökova 5.46 5 6 30 10 6.1 8 20.10.2005 Sığacık 52.42 11 12 132 50 13.2 9 19.05.2011 Simav 53.6 6 6 36 190 50 62

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

35

Table A1.

Date (d. m. y)

Origin time (to, h: m :s)

Lat. (°N)

Long

(°E)

Mag.

(M)

Strike

(φ, °)

Dip (δ, °)

Rake

(λ, °)

h (km)

Mo (××××

1016Nm)

Location Ref.

24.04.1957

19:10:13

36.37

28.59

6.9b 83 63 16 50 -

Gökova MK7

2 25.04.195

7 02:25:

42 36.4

7 28.5

6 7.1b 58 85 19 -

- Gökova

MK72

25.04.1959

00:26:39

36.97

28.50

6.1b 65 76 -70 43 -

Gökova MK7

2 18.07.197

9 13:12:

02 39.6

5 28.6

4 5.3 111 34 -85 15

11.5 Simav HRV

19.02.1989

14:28:45

36.98

28.19

5.4w 93 32 -85 15 16.4

Gökova HRV

06.11.1992

19:08:09

38.11

26.95

6.0s 225 85 -

158 13

153 Doğanbey, Đzmir

T04

28.01.1994

15:45:25

38.68

27.50

5.4 119 54 -64 8 15

Simav T04

01.10.1995

15:57:12

38.06

30.13

6.3w 136 43 -87 4 310

Dinar W99

02.04.1996

07:59:23

37.84

26.97

5.2b 269 46 -

125 9

9 Kuşadası

T04

04.04.1998

16:16:48

38.09

30.14

5.2w 154 45 -74 6 9

Simav T04

25.07.1999

06:56:54

39.32

27.98

5.2w 152 69 -32 9 4

Simav T04

10.04.2003

00:40:16

38.25

26.89

5.5s 70 85 165 8 42 Seferihi

sar T04

17.04.2003

22:34:26

38.18

26.94

5.2w 156 50 -15 15 7.04 Seferihi

sar HRV

26.07.2003

08:36:50

38.05

28.91

5.4w 60 57 -

147 15

16.3 Simav HRV

17.10.2005

09:55:30

38.17

26.71

5.2w 250 42 -

161 18

8.28 Sığacık HRV

17.02.2009

05:28:21

39.13

29.05

5.2w 131 55 -57 16.8

8.14 Simav HRV

28.05.2011*

05:47:19

39.12

29.05

5.1w 100 51 -

113 14.1

4.78 Simav HRV

27.06.2011*

21:13:58

39.11

29.03

5.0w 95 42 -

120 19.3

4.09 Simav HRV

03.05.2012*

15:20:27

39.05

29.12

5.2w 98 39 -89 12 8.89

Simav HRV

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

36

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

37

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

38

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

39

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

40

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

41

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

42

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

43

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

44

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

45

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

46

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

47

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

48

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

49

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

50

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

51

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

52

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

53

Appendix

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

54

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

55

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

56

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

57

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

58

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

59

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

60

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

61

HIGHLIGHTS

• We studied earthquake source mechanisms in the Gulfs of Gökova, Sığacık, and Simav.

• We used teleseismic P- and SH- waveforms in source inversions.

• We checked the distributions of P wave first motion polarities.

• We obtained kinematic and dynamic source parameters of earthquakes in Western

Anatolia.