Subduction Zone Observatory Workshop
Boise Centre, Boise, ID, USA


  • May 17: Final version of workshop report and 1-pager posted.
  • April 7: Draft of SZO Workshop Report and mechanism for feedback available through the "Workshop Report" tab.
  • October 23: White Paper submission extended through 11:59:59 PM Eastern Time, Sunday 10/23. The archive of papers will be regenerated following this deadline.
  • Child Care during the workshop is available through Necessary Nannies. A pre-screened experienced adult nannie will come to the attendees' hotel room and provide in-room care. The referral fee is $35 for the first day and $20 for subsequent days and $16-20/hour.
  • September 13: Registration payment and refund requests


The Subduction Zone Observatory (SZO) concept is a multidisciplinary science program to study a significant portion of one or more subduction zones as an integrated system. Subduction zones contain a rich diversity of tectonic processes operating at a wide range of temporal and spatial scales, from plate-scale over millions of years to grain-scale over microseconds. Subduction zones span continental to oceanic environments, and interact with biological processes and climate. Subduction zones are responsible for many of Earth's most extreme natural events including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis. These hazards coupled with increasing population density in these regions leads to an urgent need to understand how subduction zones work to better inform hazard assessment, mitigation, forecasting, and early warning. Emerging technologies, strong international partnerships, open access data, and the success of long-term community experiments establish a strong foundation to investigate the entire subduction zone system from an integrated, multidisciplinary perspective and at multiple scales.

A comprehensive suite of multidisciplinary onshore and offshore observations at a Subduction Zone Observatory (SZO) will enable a systems approach to the complex, interconnected suite of physical and chemical processes operating at subduction zones. An SZO will improve our understanding of natural hazards including earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. Observations acquired through an SZO will address a number of grand challenges in geoscience, including fluid flux through the crust and mantle, geochemical processes in arcs, magmatism and volcanic eruptions, injection of water into the mantle, links between deep Earth and surface processes, lithospheric deformation, the earthquake cycle, and responses to megathrust earthquakes on times scales from seconds to millions of years and spatial scales from millimeters to thousands of kilometers.

The purpose of the workshop is to seek input and start defining what suite of activities would be involved in an SZO that allow new science to be achieved.

General Information

This workshop is supported with an award from the National Science Foundation (including program support from Marine Geology and Geophysics, GeoPRISMS, EAR, EarthScope, Tectonics, Geophysics, Petrology and Geochemistry, and Geomorphology and Land Use Dynamics) and in collaboration with the USGS and international partner organizations. Contact Andy Frassetto with any relevant inquiries.

Organizing Committee

Jeff McGuire Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Co-chair
Terry Plank Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Co-chair
Sergio Barrientos Centro Sismologico, Universidad de Chile  
Patrick Fulton Texas A&M University  
Joan Gomberg United States Geological Survey  
Sean Gulick Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin  
Lee Liberty Boise State University  
Diego Melgar University of California, Berkeley  
Sarah Penniston-Dorland University of Maryland  
Diana Roman Carnegie Institution of Washington  
Phil Skemer Washington University  
Evan Solomon University of Washington  
Ikuko Wada University of Minnesota  


Writing Committee

Terry Plank Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Co-chair
Jeff McGuire Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Co-chair
Sergio Barrientos Centro Sismologico, Universidad de Chile  
Thorsten Becker Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin  
Emily Brodsky University of California, Santa Cruz  
Elizabeth Cottrell National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution  
Melodie French University of Maryland  
Patrick Fulton Texas A&M University  
Joan Gomberg United States Geological Survey  
Sean Gulick Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin  
Matt Haney United States Geological Survey, Alaska Volcano Observatory  
Diego Melgar University of California, Berkeley  
Sarah Penniston-Dorland University of Maryland  
Diana Roman Carnegie Institution of Washington  
Phil Skemer Washington University  
Harold Tobin University of Wisconsin-Madison  
Ikuko Wada University of Minnesota  
Doug Wiens Washington University in St. Louis  

Meeting Venue

The workshop will be held in the Boise Centre, located in downtown Boise. The Workshop consists of two and a half days, beginning on Thursday, September 29 and ending with lunch to-go on Saturday, October 1.


Supported participants will stay at either the Grove Hotel BoiseThe Modern Hotel, and The Riverside HotelFor U.S. Federal Employees: None of the hotels offer a per diem rate in the workshop housing block; please plan accordingly.

All three hotels offer complimentary airport shuttles.

The Grove

  • Arrival: Guests can request a complimentary shuttle on the ground transportation level in the Courtesy Van Pickup area to the right of the taxis. Call the hotel directly (208-333-8000) to notify the front desk of your arrival. The shuttles are white and display the hotel logo.
  • Departure: Shuttles leave the hotel for Boise Airport each day every 30 minutes beginning at 4:15am until 10:15am. Outside of these times, the front desk or guest services department can help coordinate the airport shuttle for you.

The Riverside

  • Arrival: Guests can call the hotel directly (208-343-1871) and ask for a pick-up upon their arrival.
  • Departure: Guests will need to notify the front desk 24 hours in advance, to arrange their shuttle transportation back to the airport.

The Modern

  • Arrival: Guests can use the free Boise Express Shuttle. If there is one not at the airport, call the hotel directly (208-424-8244) and they will make sure one is dispatched.
  • Departure: Guests will need to schedule this with the hotel in advance.

All events will be held on the Fourth floor of the Boise Centre East (850 W. Front Street, Boise, ID 83702), not the original Boise Centre.

Plenary sessions will be held in room 400AB; other locations are marked where relevant.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 - SZO Pre-Workshop Activities

Wednesday, September 28th, 2016, 12–9pm

3:00 pm
7:00 pm

Registration, Speakers Load Talks – Southwest Foyer

6:00 pm
7:00 pm

Poster Set-up – Northwest Foyer

Thursday, September 29, 2016 - SZO Workshop Day 1

Thursday, September 29th, 2016, 8:00am–9:30pm

7:00 am
8:00 am

Registration, Speakers Load Talks – Southwest Foyer

8:00 am
8:30 am

Plenary: Introduction to the Workshop

  • Why now? Background/History/Goals/Outcomes – Terry Plank
  • Perspectives from NSF – Jennifer Wade and Dennis Geist

8:30 am
9:30 am

Plenary: Inspiring Examples from Successful Programs

  • GeoPRISMS – Geoff Abers
  • EarthScope – Jeff Freymueller
  • SCEC – Greg Beroza
  • Ocean Drilling Programs – Harold Tobin

Session Chairs: Jeff McGuire and Terry Plank

9:30 am
10:00 am

Plenary: USGS Subduction Zone Science Planning

  • Introduction – Bill Leith
  • Earthquakes – Gavin Hayes
  • Volcanoes – Wes Thelen
  • Landslides – Kate Allstadt
  • Offshore studies – Ben Brooks
  • Geological studies – Peter Haeussler

Session Chairs: Jeff McGuire and Terry Plank

10:00 am
10:30 am

Coffee Break – Southwest Foyer

10:30 am
12:00 pm

Plenary: Complementary International Programs

  • Japan – Shuichi Kodaira
  • Chile – Sergio Barrientos
  • Singapore and Southeast Asia – Kerry Sieh
  • Costa Rica – Marino Protti
  • Germany – Kaj Hoernle
  • New Zealand – Laura Wallace

Session Chairs: Jeff McGuire and Terry Plank

12:00 pm
12:30 pm

Plenary: Pre-Workshop Contributions

Summary of science concepts provided by workshop applicants – Diana Roman and Phil Skemer

Session Chairs: Jeff McGuire and Terry Plank

12:30 pm
1:30 pm

Lunch – 400C

1:30 pm
3:30 pm

Plenary: Big Picture Talks with a Wide View of Each Discipline, Looking Forward

  • Deformation and the Earthquake Cycle – Demian Saffer
  • Volatiles, Magmatic Processes, and Volcanic Systems – Marie Edmonds
  • Surface Processes and Feedback Between Subduction and Climate – Eric Kirby
  • Subduction Plate Boundary Evolution and Dynamics in Space and Time – Brad Hacker

Session Chairs: Patrick Fulton and Sarah Penniston-Dorland

3:30 pm
4:00 pm

Coffee Break – Southwest Foyer

4:00 pm
5:00 pm

Plenary: Pop Up Talks based on ideas from Applications/White paper

  • Using volcanic gas geochemistry to trace volatile cycling in subduction zones – Taryn Lopez
  • Missing super-volcanoes, future super-volcanoes, finding them and listening to them! – Benoit Taisne
  • Fishing for answers: Offshore opportunities for volcano science – Matt Haney 
  • A joint petrologic-seismic-MT effort to map the distribution of fluids + melts in subduction zones in 3D – Christy Till 
  • Squeezing the slab: Future directions for metamorphic petrology in the SZO – Andrew Smye
  • Critical-zone impacts on subduction – Jane Willenbring 
  • It's all about the fluids: The utility of electromagnetic data in a SZO – Samer Naif 
  • The importance of paleoseismology and tectonic geomorphology in understanding subduction zone deformation on intermediate (10^3-10^5 yr) time scales – Kristin Morell
  • Investigating the rheology and dynamics of the plate boundary – Melodie French
  • The SZO at the local scale – Eric Kiser
  • Understanding large earthquakes and tsunamigenesis with seafloor observations – Diego Melgar 
  • Exploiting commercial submarine cable systems for earthquake and tsunami monitoring: The SMART (Science Monitoring And Reliable Telecommunications) cable concept" – Frederik Tilmann

Session Chairs: Patrick Fulton and Sarah Penniston-Dorland

5:00 pm
6:00 pm

Breakouts: Focus on Driving Science Questions (See Breakouts Tab)

  • Deformation and the Earthquake Cycle – 420A/420B
  • Volatiles, Magmatic Processes, Volcanic Systems – 410A/430A
  • Surface Processes and Tectonics – 410B/430B
  • Plate Boundary Evolution and Dynamics – 410C/440

6:00 pm
7:30 pm

Dinner on your own

7:30 pm
9:30 pm

Poster Session I (Topics: General Science, Eurasia, Indonesia, Japan, Pacific) – Northwest Foyer

Refreshments, snacks, and desserts provided by Boise State University. There will also be a cash bar.

Session Chair: Phil Skemer

Friday, September 30, 2016 - SZO Workshop Day 2

Friday, September 30th, 2016, 7am–9pm

7:00 am
7:45 am

Registration, Speakers Load Talks – Southwest Foyer

7:45 am
8:30 am

Plenary: Reporting Back from Breakouts (Science Drivers)

Session Chairs: Evan Solomon and Ikuko Wada

8:30 am
10:30 am

Plenary: Visionary Talks

Connections Between Fluids, Hazards, and Precursors

  • Permanent volcanic gas observatories can provide key insights into eruption precursors – Tobias Fischer
  • Observational strategies to address predictability – Emily Brodsky  
  • Continuous seafloor observations to understand the nature and dynamics of fluid flow through seismic cycles – Evan Solomon 
  • Capturing persistence and transience in subduction behavior – Emma Hill
  • Research and hazard challenges raised by recent great earthquakes – Thorne Lay

Integrating the Rock Record and Geodynamics

  • Exhumed rocks: A key to the inner workings of subduction – Sarah Penniston-Dorland
  • Friction in the lab and field – Heather Savage
  • New prospects for investigating subduction zone deformation processes in the lab – Greg Hirth
  • Dynamic models of subduction: Tectonics to tremor – Thorsten Becker 

Session Chairs: Evan Solomon and Ikuko Wada

10:30 am
11:00 am

Coffee Break – Southwest Lobby

11:00 am
12:30 pm

Plenary: Visionary Talks

Emerging Technologies

  • Seafloor Geodesy – David Chadwell
  • Seafloor Seismology – John Collins
  • Filling observational gap of seafloor dynamics in seismic cycles by seafloor borehole observation network – Eiichiro Araki
  • The role of cabled seafloor observatories in the SZO: Synergies with the Ocean Observatories Initiative – William Wilcock
  • Vision for an SZ volcano observatory – Jeff Johnson
  • Frontier seismic arrays for SZO science – Brandon Schmandt

Session Chairs: Evan Solomon and Ikuko Wada

12:30 pm
1:30 pm

Lunch – 400C

ECI Participants Lunch – 420A

1:30 pm
2:15 pm

Plenary: Capacity Building, Education and Outreach

  • Sustainability and international capacity-building in the context of a Subduction Zone Observatory – Jay Pulliam
  • Inreach, outreach and upreach: Exploring possibilities for broader impacts with a Subduction Zone Observatory – Donna Charlevoix
  • Experiential education: Integrating research and education in the field – Maureen Feineman

Session Chairs: Lee Liberty and Joan Gomberg 

2:15 pm
2:45 pm

Plenary: Perspectives from ECIs

Session Chairs: Lee Liberty and Joan Gomberg 

2:45 pm
3:45 pm

Plenary: Summarizing Pre-workshop Regional Webinars 

What makes specific regions ideal for approaching science problems? Integrative presentations covering broad regions; following webinars, and responding to discussions.

  • Cascadia and Alaska – Donna Shillington/David Schmidt
  • Indonesia and Southeast Asia – Michael Steckler
  • Japan and New Zealand – Nathan Bangs
  • Mexico, Central, and South America – Susan Beck

Session Chairs: Lee Liberty and Joan Gomberg 

3:45 pm
4:15 pm

Coffee Break – Southwest Lobby

4:15 pm
5:15 pm

Breakouts: Implementation Strategies I (See Breakouts Tab)

  • Megathrust Observatories – 420A/420B
  • Integrating the Rock Record and Lab Experiments – 410B/430B
  • Volcanic System Observatories – 410A/430A
  • Linking Tectonics to the Surface – 410C/440

5:15 pm
6:15 pm

Breakouts: Implementation Strategies II (See Breakouts Tab)


  • Broadly Distributed or Regionally Focused? – 420A/420B
  • Capacity Building and Education and Outreach – 410C/440
  • How to Increase International Cooperation? – 410B/430B
  • Developing System Scale Models – 410A/430A

6:15 pm
8:00 pm

Dinner on your own

8:00 pm
9:30 pm

Poster Session II (Topics: Alaska, Cascadia, Latin America) – Northwest Foyer

Session Chair: Sergio Barrientos

Saturday, October 1, 2016 - SZO Workshop Day 3

Saturday, October 1st, 2016, 8am–5pm

8:00 am
8:45 am

Plenary: Reporting back from Breakouts (Implementation)

Session Chairs: Diana Roman and Diego Melgar

8:45 am
10:30 am

Breakouts: Building a Program (See Breakouts Tab)

  • Relationships to Existing Programs/Agencies – 410C/420B 
  • How to Develop an Infrastructure Program – 410B/430B
  • Enabling Interdisciplinary Collaboration – 400AB (Part 1), 410A/430A (Part 2)
  • How to Develop a Science Program? – 420A/440

Schedule for Rotating Breakouts

  • 8:45-9:00 – Report to assigned rooms
  • 9:00-9:45 – Breakout 1
  • 9:45-10:00 – Move to next (unassigned) breakout
  • 10:00-10:30 – Breakout 2

10:30 am
11:00 am

Coffee Break – Southwest Lobby

11:00 am
11:30 pm

Plenary: Reporting back from Breakouts (Building a Program)

Session Chairs: Diana Roman and Diego Melgar

11:30 pm
12:00 pm

Plenary: Synthesis

Session Chairs: Jeff McGuire and Terry Plank

12:00 pm
1:00 pm

Collect to-go lunches and most participants depart

12:00 pm
3:00 pm

Writing committee meets – 440

The application period for this workshop closed at Wed, June 01, 2016 - 11:59:00 PM.

The abstract submission period for this workshop closed at .

The whitepaper submission period for this workshop closed at Sun, October 23, 2016 - 11:59:00 PM.

In preparation for the SZO workshop, four webinars were organized that focused on different groups of subduction zones around the world. These were open to anyone regardless of participation in the workshop. The goal of these webinars was three fold: 1) to get people thinking before the workshop about what scientific targets would be most important to potentially pursue in different locations; 2) to collect input from scientists who will not be at the workshop; 3) to begin discussing ways that international collaborations might be enhanced in those regions. Each webinar involved a few short presentations about possible SZO opportunities and then time for open discussion. The webinars were organized by small groups of workshop attendees who will summarize the discussion at the workshop and provide input to the workshop report. Based on the workshop applications, a number of regions have widespread interest for future work, and were grouped based on logistical constraints.

Watch the Webinars:

Cascadia and Alaska

Indonesia and South Asia

New Zealand and Japan

Latin America

The webinar registration period for this workshop closed at Thu, September 22, 2016 - 5:00:00 PM.

Last Name First Name Institution
Abers Geoffrey Cornell University
Ahern Tim IRIS Data Services
Akhter Syed Dhaka University
Allen Richard University of California, Berkeley
Allstadt Kate U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Science Center
Alvarado Patricia CONICET-UNSJ
Anggraini Ade Geophysics Laboratory, Universitas Gadjah Mada
Araki Eiichiro JAMSTEC
Arce Adam University of California, Santa Barbara
Arnulf Adrien Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin
Aster Rick Colorado State University
Aung Lin Thu Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University
Bangs Nathan Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin
Barrientos Sergio University of Chile
Barry Peter University of Oxford
Bartlow Noel University of Missouri
Bawden Gerald NASA Headquarters
Beck Susan University of Arizona
Becker Thorsten Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin
Behn Mark Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Bekins Barbara U.S. Geological Survey
Benoit Margaret National Science Foundation
Bergantz George University of Washington
Beroza Gregory Stanford University
Bezada Maximiliano University of Minnesota
Bilek Susan New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Birner Suzanne Stanford University
Blacic Tanya Montclair State University
Blackman Donna Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Blanpied Michael U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program
Bodin Paul University of Washington
Bormann Jayne University of Nevada, Reno / CSU Long Beach
Brandon Mark Yale University
Brocher Tom U.S. Geological Survey
Brodsky Emily University of California, Santa Cruz
Brooks Ben U.S. Geological Survey
Busby Robert IRIS
Cabral-Cano Enrique Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Cai Yue Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Caplan-Auerbach Jacqueline Western Washington University
Carbotte Suzanne Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Carr Brett Arizona State University
Chadwell C. David Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Charlevoix Donna UNAVCO
Chen Chuanxu Institute of Deep-sea Science and Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Chen Ting Wuhan University
Collins John Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Cook Matthew Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Costa Fidel Earth Observatory of Singapore
Cottrell Elizabeth National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
Creager Ken University of Washington
Cruz-Uribe Alicia University of Maine
Detrick Robert IRIS
Eaton David University of Calgary
Ebinger Cynthia University of Rochester
Edmonds Marie University of Cambridge
Egbert Gary Oregon State University
Eilon Zachary Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Elliott Julie Purdue University
Ericksen Todd U.S. Geological Survey
Evans Eileen U.S. Geological Survey
Evans Rob Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Evers Brent IRIS - OBSIP
Fee David University of Alaska Fairbanks
Feineman Maureen Pennsylvania State University
Fischer Tobias University of New Mexico
Flores Kennet E CUNY Brooklyn College
Frassetto Andrew IRIS
French Melodie University of Maryland
Freymueller Jeff University of Alaska Fairbanks
Frost Carol National Science Foundation
Fu Yuning Bowling Green State University
Fulton Patrick Texas A&M University
Furlong Kevin Pennsylvania State University
Gaherty James Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Galve Audrey Géoazur
Gao Baiyuan University of Texas at Austin
Gazel Esteban Virginia Tech
Geist Dennis National Science Foundation
Gibson James Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Gomberg Joan U.S. Geological Survey
Gonnermann Helge Rice University
Gose Brooklyn Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin
Gribler Gabriel Boise State University
Gurnis Michael Caltech
Gusman Aditya Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo
Hacker Bradley University of California, Santa Barbara
Haeussler Peter U.S. Geological Survey
Han Shuoshuo Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin
Haney Matthew U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Volcano Observatory
Hansen Steven University of New Mexico
Hayes Gavin U.S. Geological Survey, NEIC
Heesemann Martin Ocean Networks Canada / University of Victoria
Hill Emma Earth Observatory of Singapore
Hirth Greg Brown University
Hobbs Tiegan Georgia Institute of Technology
Hoernle Kaj GEOMAR Helmholtz Center
Iacovino Kayla Arizona State University
Ito Yoshihiro DPRI, Kyoto University
Jackson Matthew University of California, Santa Barbara
Janiszewski Helen Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Johnson Jeffrey Boise State University
Karplus Marianne University of Texas at El Paso
Kawakatsu Hitoshi Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo
Kelbert Anna U.S. Geological Survey
Kent Adam Oregon State University
Key Kerry Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
King Scott Virginia Tech
Kinoshita Masataka Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo
Kirby Eric Oregon State University
Kiser Eric University of Arizona
Kitajima Hiroko Texas A&M University
Kodaira Shuichi JAMSTEC
Kogan Mikhail Columbia University
Krawczynski Mike Washington University in St. Louis
LaBrecque John Global Geodetic Observing System / University of Texas at Austin
Lapusta Nadia Caltech
Lauer Rachel University of Calgary
Lawrence Justin National Science Foundation
Lay Thorne University of California, Santa Cruz
Lee Rebekah Boise State University
Lee Sang-Mook Seoul National University
Leith William U.S. Geological Survey
Liberty Lee Boise State University
Liu Yajing McGill University
Lloyd Karen University of Tennessee
Long Maureen Yale University
Lopez Taryn University of Alaska Fairbanks
Loveless Jack Smith College
Lowry Anthony R Utah State University
Lynner Colton University of Arizona
Major Candace National Science Foundation
Marshall Jeff Cal Poly Pomona University
Mattioli Glen UNAVCO
McCrory Patricia U.S. Geological Survey
McGuire Jeff Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Melgar Diego University of California, Berkeley
Meltzer Anne Lehigh University
Mikesell Dylan Boise State University
Miller Meghan UNAVCO
Miller Meghan S. University of Southern California
Moore Diane U.S. Geological Survey
Moore Lowell Virginia Tech
Moore-Driskell Melissa University of North Alabama
Morell Kristin University of Victoria
Moresi Louis University of Melbourne
Morgan Julia Rice University
Muller Cyril Observatorio Vulcanológico y Sismológico de Costa Rica, UNA
Murray Jessica U.S. Geological Survey
Naif Samer Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Newcombe Megan Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Newman Andrew Georgia Institute of Technology
Ni James New Mexico State University
Norabuena Edmundo Instituto Geofisico del Peru
Orcutt John Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Penniston-Dorland Sarah University of Maryland
Perez-Campos Xyoli Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Pitcher Bradley Oregon State University
Plank Terry Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Pollitz Fred U.S. Geological Survey
Pritchard Matt Cornell University
Protti Marino Observatorio Vulcanológico y Sismológico de Costa Rica, UNA
Pulliam Jay Baylor University
Ramirez-Herrera Maria-Teresa Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Ramos Marlon Boise State University
Reichlin Robin National Science Foundation
Rietbrock Andreas Liverpool Earth Observatory, University of Liverpool
Roeloffs Evelyn U.S. Geological Survey
Roland Emily University of Washington
Roman Diana Carnegie Institution for Science
Ruiz Mario Instituto Geofisico
Ruprecht Philipp University of Nevada, Reno
Saffer Demian Pennsylvania State University
Salman Rino Earth Observatory of Singapore
Saunders Jessie Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Savage Heather Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Schmandt Brandon University of New Mexico
Schmidt David University of Washington
Schmitz Michael FUNVISIS
Scholl David U.S. Geological Survey / University of Alaska Fairbanks
Schultz Adam Oregon State University
Schwartz Susan University of California, Santa Cruz
Scott Erin Durham University
Segall Paul Stanford University
Sheehan Anne University of Colorado Boulder
Shillington Donna Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Sieh Kerry Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University
Simons Mark Caltech
Skemer Phil Washington University in St. Louis
Smye Andrew Pennsylvania State University
Solomon Evan University of Washington
Steckler Michael Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Stoner Ryan University of California, Santa Barbara
Taisne Benoit Earth Observatory of Singapore
Tamura Yoshihiko JAMSTEC
Thant Myo Myanmar Earthquake Committee / University of Mandalay
Thelen Weston U.S. Geological Survey, Cascades Volcano Observatory
Thurber Clifford University of Wisconsin-Madison
Till Christy Arizona State University
Tilmann Frederik GFZ Potsdam
Tivey Maurice National Science Foundation
Tobin Harold University of Wisconsin-Madison
Tolstoy Maya Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Toomey Douglas University of Oregon
Torres Bernhard Lidia Instituto Hondureño De Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras
Tréhu Anne Oregon State University
Van Avendonk Harm Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin
Van Eaton Alexa U.S. Geological Survey, Cascades Volcano Observatory
van Keken Peter Carnegie Institution for Science
Vargas Jimenez Carlos A. Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Vidale John University of Washington
von Huene Roland U.S. Geological Survey (Emeritus)
Wada Ikuko University of Minnesota
Wade Jennifer National Science Foundation
Wagner Lara Carnegie Institution for Science
Wall Kellie Oregon State University
Wallace Laura Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin
Wallace Paul University of Oregon
Walter Jacob Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin
Wang Kelin Geological Survey of Canada
Wanless V. Dorsey Boise State University
Ward Kevin University of Arizona
Waszek Lauren University of Maryland
Webb Spahr Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Wech Aaron U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Volcano Observatory
Wei Meng University of Rhode Island
Wei Songqiao Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Wells Ray U.S. Geological Survey
Wiens Douglas Washington University in St Louis
Wilcock William University of Washington
Willenbring Jane Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Williamson Amy Georgia Institute of Technology
Wirth Erin University of Washington
Woodward Bob IRIS
Worthington Lindsay University of New Mexico
Yanites Brian Indiana University
Yogodzinski Gene University of South Carolina
Yu Wang Earth Observatory of Singapore
Yun Sang-Ho NASA JPL
Zhu Wenlu University of Maryland
Zumberge Mark Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

The scholarship application period for this workshop closed at .

Poster assignments are listed below, grouped by topic. Poster sizes are 4 foot by 4 foot, two on each side of the poster board. Because of limited extra space, additional posters are unlikely to be displayed.

Posters should be displayed for the duration of the meeting, from Wednesday evening until Friday night at 10 PM. Thursday's session will emphasize posters 1-47, Friday's session will emphasize posters 48-97.


Session Region Number Title Author
Thursday General 1 A comparative study of volatile contents of primitive bubble-bearing melt inclusions determined by Raman-spectroscopy and mass-balance versus experimental homogenization methods: implications for volatile cycling in subduction zones Lowell Moore
Thursday General 2 Heterogeneous Oxidation in Supra-Subduction Settings: Evidence from Forearc Peridotites Suzanne Birner
Thursday General 3 Arc Magma Genesis from Melting of Mélange Diapirs Cici Cruz-Uribe
Thursday General 4 Making continental crust in oceanic arcs Esteban Gazel
Thursday General 5 Petrologic clocks for tracking magma ascent and eruption Megan Newcombe
Thursday General 6 Recent examples of near-real-time geochemical monitoring of active subduction zone volcanoes for eruption forecasting Tobias Fischer
Thursday General 7 Biology Meets Subduction: A Collaborative and Multi-disciplinary Deep Carbon Field Initiative Karen Lloyd
Thursday General 8 Geomechanics of fold-and-thrust belt systems Baiyuan Gao
Thursday General 9 Pore fluid pressure controls on fault rupture and slip Melodie French
Thursday General 10 Reaction weakening of dunite in friction experiments at hydrothermal conditions and its relevance to subduction zones Diane Moore
Thursday General 11 Electromagnetic imaging of subduction zones Kerry Key
Thursday General 12 Experimental Constraints on Electrical Conductivity and 3-D Melt Distribution in Partially Molten Rocks Wenlu Zhu
Thursday General 13 Great (>Mw8.0) Megathrust Earthquakes Preferentially Rupture Where Thick (>1.0 km) Sediment and Smooth Seafloor Enter the Subduction Zone Dave Scholl
Thursday General 14 Discrete Element Simulations of Forearc Deformation and Megathrust Slip Juli Morgan
Thursday General 15 Inverse models of subduction with global plate motions Mike Gurnis
Thursday General 16 Why cold slabs stagnate in the transition zone Scott King
Thursday General 17 Seismic attenuation of an oceanic plate from ridge to trench Zach Eilon
Thursday General 18 Global observations of mid-mantle discontinuities Lauren Waszek
Thursday General 19 Large-Scale Science Observatories: Building on What We Have Learned from USArray Andy Frassetto
Thursday General 20 The Future of Geodesy in a Subduction Zone Observatory Meghan Miller
Thursday General 21 Subduction Zone Science at the NEIC Gavin Hayes
Thursday General 22 Exploiting commercial submarine cable systems for earthquake and tsunami monitoring: the SMART (Science Monitoring And Reliable Telecommunications) cable concept Frederik Tilmann
Thursday General 23 Variation in seafloor noise with instrument depth John Orcutt
Thursday General 24 Opportunities for building an offshore component of a Subduction-Zone Observatory Jim Gaherty
Thursday General 25 What can hydroacoustic data tell us about submarine eruption dynamics? Jackie Caplan-Auerbach
Thursday General 26 On back projection of ionospheric signals to image the earthquake source Rebekah F. Lee
Thursday General 27 Regional infrasound array in the context of subduction zone volcanism Benoit Taisne
Thursday General 28 Implementation of a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Augmentation to Tsunami Early Warning Systems John LaBrecque
Thursday General 29 Sensitivity of Onshore/Offshore GNSS Displacements to Detecting Shallow Slip from a Tsunami Earthquake Jessie Saunders
Thursday General 30 Towards routine multi-platform global volcano monitoring from space: science and hazard drivers Matt Pritchard
Thursday General 31 Understanding unrest of subduction zone volcanoes using WOVOdat Fidel Costa
Thursday Eurasia 32 ExTerra Field Institute and Research Endeavor: Subduction in the Western Alps Maureen Feineman
Thursday Eurasia 33 Structure and dynamics of the Himalayan Seismogenic Zone Marianne Karplus
Thursday Indonesia 34 Active Inversion of Central Myanmar Belt Respect To the Arakan Megathrust-Sagaing Fault Slip Partitioning System: Structural Geometry and Post-Pleistocene Uplifting of Pyay Thrust Lin Thu Aung
Thursday Indonesia 35 Active tectonics along the northern extension of the Sunda megathrust system Wang Yu
Thursday Indonesia 36 Tectonics of the IndoBurma Oblique Subduction Zone Michael Steckler
Thursday Indonesia 37 Capturing snapshots of persistence and transience in slip behavior: a collection of geodetic and paleogeodetic studies along the Sumatran subduction zone Emma Hill
Thursday Indonesia 38 The 2008 Mw 7.2 North Pagai earthquake sequence: Partial rupture of a fully locked Mentawai patch Rino Salman
Thursday Indonesia 39 Banda Arc Experiment - Transitions in the Banda Arc-Australian Continental Collision Meghan S. Miller
Thursday Japan 40 3D onshore-offshore seismic investigation of Japan's megathrusts - proof of concept Adrien Arnulf
Thursday Japan 41 Seafloor real-time observation network in the Nankai Trough seismogenic zone Eiichiro Araki
Thursday Japan 42 In situ observations of earthquake-driven fluid pulses within the Japan Trench plate boundary fault zone Patrick Fulton
Thursday Pacific 43 Characterizing intermediate-depth earthquake rupture in the Northern Marianas Subduction Zone Adam Arce
Thursday Pacific 44 Triggered tremor and slow slip in the Western Solomon Islands Jake Walter
Thursday Pacific 45 Slab temperature controls on the Tonga double seismic zone and slab mantle dehydration S. Shawn Wei
Thursday Pacific 46 Subduction of Cook-Austral volcanic lineament into the Tonga Trench Matthew G. Jackson
Thursday Pacific 47 Using Slow Slip to Study Slip Partitioning in the Hikurangi Subduction Zone Noel M. Bartlow
Friday Alaska 48 Advent of continents: a new hypothesis from Izu-Ogasawara and Aleutian arcs Yoshi Tamura
Friday Alaska 49 Linking subduction to volcanism in the Aleutian Arc using volcanic gas geochemistry Taryn Lopez
Friday Alaska 50 Ages and geochemical comparison of coeval central-eastern Aleutian volcanics and plutons (Merry) Yue Cai
Friday Alaska 51 Controls on faulting, water cycling and earthquakes in the Alaska subduction zone from active-source seismic imaging Donna Shillington
Friday Alaska 52 New Seismic Images In The 1946 Unimak Alaska Tsunami Source Area And A Splay Fault Mechanism Roland von Huene
Friday Alaska 53 Characterizing the Easternmost Alaska Subduction Zone Julie Elliott
Friday Alaska 54 Segmentation of slow slip events in south central Alaska possibly controlled by a subducted oceanic plateau Meng "Matt" Wei
Friday Cascadia 55 CCArray: Consequence of Current and Past Plate Interactions in the Canadian Cordillera David Eaton
Friday Cascadia 56 Tsunami forecast and source studies of the 2012 Haida Gwaii earthquake using dense array of pressure gauges in the Cascadia subduction zone Aditya Gusman
Friday Cascadia 57 Quaternary deformation along a prominent forearc fault on Vancouver Island, British Columbia Kristin Morell
Friday Cascadia 58 Cabling a Tectonic Plate -- Continuous Live Data from the Cascadia Subduction Zone is enabled through Ocean Networks Canada's NEPTUNE Observatory and the Ocean Observatories Initiative's Cabled Array Martin Heesemann
Friday Cascadia 59 A Realtime, Seafloor, Borehole Geophysical Observatory for Long-Term Monitoring of the Cascade Subduction Zone John Collins
Friday Cascadia 60 An Offshore Geophysical Network in the Pacific Northwest for Earthquake and Tsunami Early Warning and Hazard Research William Wilcock
Friday Cascadia 61 An Absolute Self-Calibrating Pressure Recorder for Campaign-Style Detection of Vertical Seafloor Deformation in the Cascadia Subduction Zone Matthew Cook
Friday Cascadia 62 Stress Levels in the Southern Cascadia Subduction zone from onshore-offshore Seismo-geodetic arrays Jeff McGuire
Friday Cascadia 63 Borehole Strainmeters as Tools for Observing Slow Slip: The Earthscope Plate Boundary Observatory in the Cascadia Forearc Evelyn Roeloffs
Friday Cascadia 64 Sediment consolidation at the Cascadia margin deformation front and its impact on megathrust slip behavior Shuoshuo Han
Friday Cascadia 65 Sharp estimates of slow slip on the Cascadia subduction zone Jack Loveless
Friday Cascadia 66 Modeling segmented slow slip events along the Cascadia subduction zone Yajing Liu
Friday Cascadia 67 Reconciling GPS and Geologic Observations for Long-Term Deformation of the Cascadia Forearc Mark Brandon
Friday Cascadia 68 Evidence for Distributed Clockwise Rotation of the Crust in the Northwestern United States from Fault Geometries and Earthquake Focal Mechanisms Tom Brocher
Friday Cascadia 69 Cascadia seismogenic zone earthquake detection and location Susan Bilek
Friday Cascadia 70 Cascadia subduction tremor muted by crustal faults Ray Wells
Friday Cascadia 71 Implications of the earthquake cycle for inferring fault locking on the Cascadia megathrust Fred F. Pollitz
Friday Cascadia 72 The Cascadia M9 Project and 3-D Simulations of Megathrust Earthquakes Erin Wirth
Friday Cascadia 73 Surprising observations from the Cascadia Subduction Zone Richard Allen
Friday Cascadia 74 Statistics and Segmentation: A Robust and Unbiased Analysis of Cascade Arc Variability Brad Pitcher
Friday Cascadia 75 Surface Wave Imaging of the Cascadia Subduction Zone Using an Amphibious Dataset Helen Janiszewski
Friday Cascadia 76 Three-dimensional magnetotelluric imaging of Cascadia subduction zone from an amphibious array Gary Egbert
Friday Cascadia 77 Large Array Magnetotelluric Investigations at Convergent Margins: Lessons from Cascadia on Margin Segmentation, Fluids in the Mantle Wedge, and Sources of Arc Magmas Adam Schultz
Friday Cascadia 78 Helium as a tracer for fluids released from Juan de Fuca lithosphere beneath the Cascadia forearc Pat McCrory
Friday Cascadia 79 Goat Rocks Volcano: A Long-Lived Andesite Center In The Southern Washington Cascades Kellie Wall
Friday Cascadia 80 Mount Hood, an archetype andesite volcano in an active subduction zone Adam Kent
Friday Cascadia 81 Preliminary 3D Vp results from the iMUSH active-source seismic experiment Eric Kiser
Friday Latin America 82 Seismic experiments along the Mexican subduction zone Xyoli Perez-Campos
Friday Latin America 83 The Mexican Subduction Zone and Vertical Deformation across the Forearc in the Guerrero seismic gap Teresa Ramirez
Friday Latin America 84 TLALOCNet: A Continuous GPS-Met backbone in Mexico for Seismotectonic and Atmospheric Research Enrique Cabral-Cano
Friday Latin America 85 Metamorphic evolution of retrograde eclogites from the Guatemala Suture Zone: PTt paths and tectonic implications Kennet E. Flores
Friday Latin America 86 Porosity and fluid budget of the incoming plate and forearc revealed with marine electromagnetic data from the Middle America Trench Samer Naif
Friday Latin America 87 Clay dehydration and seismicity along the Costa Rican subduction margin Rachel Lauer
Friday Latin America 88 Partitioning of the Total Slip Signal through the Seismic Cycle: Results from the Nicoya Seismic Cycle Observatory (NSCO) Andrew Newman
Friday Latin America 89 A recipe for an arc volcano eruption at Irazœ, Costa Rica -- ingredients and timing of magma transport Philipp Ruprecht
Friday Latin America 90 Lithospheric structure in the Northwest South America: constraining the problem with receiver functions and other geophysical observations Carlos Vargas Jimenez
Friday Latin America 91 The April 2016 Mw 7.8 Pedernales Earthquake and Aftershocks, Ecuador Anne Meltzer
Friday Latin America 92 The northern Peru seismic gap: Weak coupling endmember? Cynthia Ebinger
Friday Latin America 93 Geophysical Networks to monitor earthquake processes and crustal deformation asociated to the subduction zone off Peru Edmundo O. Norabuena
Friday Latin America 94 Tracing Altiplano-Puna surface uplift via radiogenic isotope compositions of Andean arc lavas Erin M. Scott
Friday Latin America 95 The Subducting Nazca Slab: Constraints from Teleseismic Tomography Susan Beck
Friday Latin America 96 The IPOC plate boundary observatory in Northern Chile Frederik Tilmann
Friday Latin America 97 Seismicity in the Andean Back-Arc of Argentina Patricia Alvarado

Each breakout session is divided into two rooms (A and B) with a discussion leader (L) and rapporteur (R) for each group. This is designed to best facilitate small group discussions (~30 people/room).

Breakout Session 1 - Thursday PM - Driving Science Questions

I. Deformation and Earthquake Cycle                                             

  • A-Mark Simons (L), Emily Roland (R) (420A)
  • B-Susan Schwartz (L), Joan Gomberg (R) (420B)

1. Earthquake Cycle Strain Accumulation and Release Budgets

  • How well can we determine the strain accumulation and release budgets for subduction zone megathrusts and do they remain constant over more than one earthquake cycle?
  • How do we reconcile the complexity of the megathrust as seen by seismology (e.g., in Nankai) with our geometrically simple models of inter-,co-,post-seismic slip?
  • What is the role of non-elastic strain and the link between long time scale models (e.g., critical taper wedge) and EQ models?

2. Slip Mode and Physical Conditions

  • What primary physical conditions along the plate boundary and within the overriding and down going plates control the modes of slip and strain accumulation?
  • Can the same regions of the plate interface slip in different modes (fast and slow slip or seismic and aseismic slip) within an earthquake cycle?

3. Is precursory slow slip unique to earthquakes above some size or on the megathrust?


II. Volatiles, Magmatic Processes, Volcanic Systems                                 

  • A-Adam Kent (L), George Bergantz (R) (410A)
  • B-David Fee (L), Philipp Ruprecht (R) (430A)

1. Why do we have so much variability in eruption frequency and style, and erupted magma type within and between volcanoes from a single arc? What are the predictors and drivers of this variation, and what is the role of crust vs. mantle processes? What is the relationship between volcanic flux and intrusive magmatism?

2. Do we already know what we need to know regarding the abundances of volatile elements in SZ magmas and within their crust and mantle source regions? Do we need more measurements? If so, of what and how do we obtain them? What new constraints on volatile abundances and fluxes are likely to be the most important?

3. How do volatile elements in SZ magmas relate to hydrothermal processes, ore deposit formation and volcanic eruption style. Can we predict eruption style and hazards from knowledge of magmatic volatile abundances? Do volatiles take different pathways than magma through the crust and mantle, and if so what are the implications?


III. Surface Processes and Tectonics

  • A-Mark Brandon (L), Brian Yanites (R) (410B)

1. How does surface erosion, and spatial (e.g. forearc) and temporal (e.g. climate change) variations in the pattern of erosion, influence mass balance and deformation in the forearc wedge?

2. How do we integrate geodetic data from decadal time scales as provided by GPS, and from geological time scales as provided by geomorphic markers?

3. How do we use surface processes and geomorphic markers to study deep subduction-zone processes (e.g. accretion, subduction erosion, rheology, tectonic thickening and thinning)?

  • B-Jeff Marshall (L), Jane Willenbring (R) (430B)

1. How do variations in climate (both temporal and latitudinal) affect subduction zone processes and forearc topographic evolution?

2. How do changing fluxes of sediment offshore affect subduction processes such as megathrust rupture, tsunamigenesis, and changes in forearc topography, rheology, and mass balance?

3. Subduction zone processes/events frequently lead to ‘cascading’ hazards. From coseismic landslides to volcanic debris, landscapes ‘feel’ the impacts of these events long after the event themselves. How long does the propagation of the processes impact society and ecologic communities?


IV.  Plate Boundary Evolution and Dynamics                                 

  • A-Michael Gurnis (L), Maureen Long (R) (410C)

1. How and why do the slab and trench morphology evolve through time, and what are the factors that control this? For example, what are the roles of trench migration, the rheology of the slab and surrounding mantle, the strength of the plate interface, and the thermal and compositional buoyancy of the slab?

2. How does the large-scale geodynamic setting of subduction zones (such as plate kinematics, slab morphology, mantle flow, and slab interactions with deep mantle structure) affect processes that find expression on the surface, such as the generation and migration of melt and slip on the plate interface?

3. What are the pathways for fluids and volatiles in the subduction system, and what role do they play in the water and carbon budgets of subduction systems?

  • B-Harm Van Avendonk (L), Ikuko Wada (R) (440)

1. What controls the formation and the physical properties of a subduction channel/mélange? How does the presence or absence of the subduction channel affect the dynamics of the subduction system?

2. What controls the transition between shallow slab-mantle decoupling and deeper slab-mantle coupling? Is this transition gradual or abrupt? What is the relationship between decoupling behavior and the presence/properties of the subduction channel?

3. What are the roles of relative buoyancy, metamorphic fluids, and forced return flow in the large-scale exhumation of HP/UHP rocks from the subduction channel? Is HP/UHP rock exhumation a common process or a relatively rare process?


Breakout Session 2 - Friday PM - Implementation Strategies I

I. Megathrust Observatories

  • A-Andrew Newman (L), Aaron Wech (R) (420A)
  • B-Gavin Hayes (L), Patrick Fulton (R) (420B)

1. What are the key types of new observations that could greatly improve our understanding of megathrusts?

2. Is real time data collection and dissemination (including for offshore networks) a necessary component of an SZO?

3. How should an SZO (or multiple SZOs) be implemented to address these science issues? What is the best model to follow that both targets the broadest range of questions, while providing the best chance to answer them?

II. Integrating the Rock Record and Lab Experiments

  • A-Wenlu Zhu (L), Alicia Cruz-Uribe (R) (410B)
  • B-Phil Skemer (L), Hiroko Kitajima (R) (430B)

1. How can experiments be used to make testable predictions that can be validated (or debunked) by a SZO? (the forward approach)

2. How can experimental data be used to ensure that interpretations based on geophysical and geochemical observations are physically/chemically valid? (the inverse approach)

3. How can experimental studies be integrated with geological/geophysical/geochemical observations? (How can we develop better collaboration between disciplines in SZO?)


III. Volcanic System Observatories

  • A-Rick Aster (L), Cliff Thurber (R) (410A)
  • B-Jacqueline Caplan-Auerbach (L), Elizabeth Cottrell (R) (430A)

1. How can we best expand and improve our capabilities in eruption forecasting?

2. What strategies are required to determine the mechanisms driving magma production, volcanic seismicity, and eruption style?

3. How can scientific questions related to regional stress fluid flow, volatile abundance, and volcanism best be addressed in the context of a subduction zone volcano observatory?


IV. Linking Tectonics to the Surface

  • A-Peter Hauessler (L), Kerry Key (R) (410C)
  • B-Ray Wells (L), Kristin Morell (R) (440)

1. What essential observations would greatly improve our understanding of the relations among deformation, seismogenesis, and the creation and erosion of subduction zone topography?

2. How do we acquire systematic, deformation/uplift/erosion rates across spatial and temporal scales, from millennia to megaannums, and incorporate them into a subduction zone observatory?

3. How big is our net? Who could be a part of a subduction zone collaboratory linking the surface to tectonics (NASA satellites, NOAA, USGS, state lidar and bathymetry programs)?


Breakout Session 3 - Friday PM - Implementation Strategies II 

Breakout Assignments for Attendees

I. Broadly Distributed or Regionally Focused?

  • A-Doug Toomey (L), Donna Shillington (R) (420A)
  • B-Matt Pritchard (L), Anne Sheehan (R) (420B)

1. Let's define the terms: What would a broadly distributed or regionally focused approach look like? How would the implementation of each vary depending on the scientific goals and logistics? What are past or ongoing examples of each? What are the lessons learned from these?

2. What scientific questions are best answered by a broadly distributed approach? What questions are best addressed with a regionally focused approach?

3. What are the advantages (in terms of science and logistics) to the regionally focused or broadly distributed approaches? What are the disadvantages?


II. Capacity Building and Education and Outreach

  • A-Donna Charlevoix (L), Matt Haney (R) (410C)
  • B-Jay Pulliam (L), Enrique Cabral-Cano (R) (440)

1. How do (geo)science-oriented capacity-building, education and outreach initiatives differ from nation to nation and region to region? How do we strengthen cross-border collaborations and capacity-building efforts?
2. What sorts of geoscience-related knowledge, skills and experience are valued locally? How can an SZO be leveraged to expand them?
3. What obstacles inhibit people, governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations from realizing their geoscience-related professional goals?


III. How to Increase International Cooperation?

  • A-Fidel Costa-Rodriguez (L), Hitoshi Kawakatsu (R) (410B)
  • B-Andreas Rietbrock (L), Edmundo Norabuena (R) (430B)

1. What to share, and How, and with Who? From data, software to scientific discoveries, social information, and interactions with local government agencies

2. What structures would increase international collaboration? e.g.

   a) Data centers
   b) Infrastructure
   c) Funding mechanisms for local involvement
   d) Long term maintenance

3. Education and capacity building, who and how, from the local public to the next generation global leaders?


IV. Developing System Scale Models

  • A-Paul Segall (L), Tony Lowry (R) (410A)
  • B-Peter van Keken (L), Yajing Liu (R) (430A)

1. What should the scope be? From geodynamic/mantle spatial/temporal scales to current strain accumulation and release on faults?

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a single combined system model encompassing processes of volatile-flux/magmatism/volcanism, megathrust earthquakes, and long term deformation in a single study area, vs. identifying different areas that separately target magmatic, seismic, etc systems?

3. How should SZO operate to develop system-scale models (i.e., in terms of funding/facilitation/community engagement)? 


Breakout Session 4 - Saturday AM - Building a Program

Breakout Assignments for Attendees

I. Relationships to Existing Programs/Agencies

  • A-John Vidale (L), Jeff Freymueller (R) (410C)

1. What are the most important NEW scientific and monitoring advances that could come from leveraging existing US-backed programs (e.g., EarthScope, GeoPRISMS, MARGINS).

2. Where are there new opportunities from engaging with additional partners (non-US)?

3. How should the SZO engage effectively with agencies and researchers in developing countries, to assist in building capacity and leverage their ongoing efforts?

  • B-Donna Blackman (L), Barbara Bekins (R) (420B)

1. SZO might be an "umbrella" within which many agencies/groups would likely have programs/centers/institutes that link in:

   a) What is the primary motivation of each agency/group that could potentially partner in SZO?
   b) Are there secondary motivations?
   c) What time frame of observation is needed for rigorous advance(s) toward that goal?
   d) What region(s) is(are) of primary focus to achieve this goal?

2. Which agencies/groups have overlapping motivation for SZO studies? Indicate current assets being used to address the goal by each.

3. What new potential advances can be envisioned through collaborative/cooperative projects with various choices of possible partnerships? What assets would be needed? What time frame would be needed to achieve progress for possible partnerships discussed?


II. How to Develop an Infrastructure Program

  • A-Evelyn Roeloffs (L), Merry Cai (R) (410B)
  • B-Harold Tobin (L), Ken Creager (R) (430B)

1. How should infrastructure for SZO be designed and funded to best serve the wide variety of scientific objectives flexibly and efficiently?

2. How can we improve existing data facilities to better suit research goals over the short term (discovery and publication) and the long term (preservation and open access)?

3. SZO will not only promote scientific discovery, it will also have societal benefits such as hazard reduction. How can these broader impacts increase the base of support for SZO infrastructure?


III. Enabling Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Part 1: Both sessions (400AB)

Part 2:

  • A-Mark Behn (L), Matt Jackson (R) (410A)
  • B-Tim Ahern (L), Rob Evans (R) (430A)

1. In the context of an SZO, what is interdisciplinary research?

2. What are the impediments to true interdisciplinary research? Consider:
   a) Finding where the data are
   b) Figuring out how to access the data
   c) Decoding the format
   d) Tools to work with interdisciplinary research data in one environment
   e) Visualization

3. How do we deal with the different scales of investigation (time and space) inherent to each discipline?


IV. How to Develop a Science Program?

  • A-Julia Morgan (L), Greg Beroza (R) (420A)
  • B-Doug Wiens (L), Kelin Wang (R) (440)

1. What should be the breakdown between large-scale community-based "systems science” projects and PI-driven projects within SZO. Also, to what degree should SZO "cross the shoreline" and NSF divisions.

2. What is the role of infrastructure within SZO (see concurrent breakout), and how should available resources be divided between the science and infrastructure?

3. To what degree should SZO emphasize societal needs, e.g., hazards reduction, economic benefits, and other national or global priorities.

4. Given the enormous scale of potential SZO related science, should implementation of the science goals be phased over time and space, e.g., rotation based on geography, infrastructure needs and availability, discipline, or some other basis?

The SZ4D Initiative: Understanding the Processes that Underlie Subduction Zone Hazards in 4D Download Report Download 1-Pager

This report details the many ideas discussed during the workshop for how best to advance subduction zone science in the coming decade. It presents the range of views discussed at the workshop on the high-priority science targets, the critical gaps that are holding back subduction zone science, the need for interdisciplinary in-reach and capacity-building outreach, and the promising paths forward that the academic, national agency, and international communities could pursue in the coming years to transform subduction zone science. Taken together, these views lead to a vision for a new SZ4D Initiative to capture and model the 4D evolution of subduction zones.

A draft of the report was available for community feedback from April 7 to May 2. The report writing committee assimilated this feedback into the report, and a final version was posted on May 17.



Community Feedback

Robert Reilinger (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
April 10, 2017 - 12:35:03

Beautiful, very impressive and convincing report! Only comment is the report focuses exclusively on the circum-Pacific subduction zones. Is this intentional (I didn't read the report in detail)? I see no mention of the Hellenic Arc that represents the most significant seismic and tsunami hazard in the Mediterranean region. Our Greek colleagues have recently had the arc selected as a "supersite", there has been a major effort for some yearts to instrument the arc and backarc, and there are efforts underway or being planned for tsunami warning systems and other hazard mitigation strategies. If you want information on this program, please contact the Suoersite Coordinator, Alexandros Savvaidis Greek Supersite Coordinator: Alexandros Savvaidis ITSAK (Institute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering) Courier Address: Dasyliou Str, Elaiones, 55535 Pylaia, Thessaloniki, Greece Postal Address: P.O. Box 53, 55102, Finikas, Thessaloniki, Greece Tel: +30 6974482593 email:

Emma Hill (Earth Observatory of Singapore)
April 14, 2017 - 11:05:18

p.34 Singapore and Indonesia are in Asia, not Oceania p.42. I'm confused by this figure. For Sumatra, the gap is marked at the Enggano section of the Sunda megathrust, as well as far western Java. Why only far western Java, when the whole megathrust offshore Java has had no history of a large earthquake? I would say the whole thing is a gap. And for Sumatra, why is the Mentawai patch not marked as a gap, since it is known to be locked and overdue. For the Enggano section, however, it's unclear that it's capable of generating a great earthquake. It's quite confusing, actually, as the GPS data suggest that it is creeping, but we do see drowned trees on the island of Enggano that would suggest it has been locked in the past. Also, I don't see any blue dots, only white dots.

William Wilcock (University of Washington)
April 16, 2017 - 12:35:32

I think the report is very well put together. It makes a very compelling case for the importance of an integrated scientific effort to understand the science that underlies subduction zone hazards. It is somewhat lacking in detailed specifics of what a program might be (e.g., the details that would allow NSF to estimate the likely cost), but I think that accurately reflects the state of the discussions at the workshop. My biggest concern comes in section 9. To make SZ4D a success, a substantial investment in infrastructure will be required. The report text (p. 55, right column) explains that the infrastructure could be "grouped into a single, large, coordinated program or be a more loose federation of smaller, right-sized, mid-scale projects". However, Table 9.1 on page 54 lists only Mid-Scale Infrastructure/MRI proposals in this option and I would judge that the use of the term "right-sized" in the text indicates a preference for this approach. The practical problem with this is that unless there are development of which I am aware, NSF has no mechanism to fund mid-scale infrastructure. As I understand it MRI's top out at $7M and MRE's start at $70M (I am not certain of these numbers but there is a big gap) and while there are discussions at NSF as to how to remedy this, they have been ongoing for at least a decade with no evidence from the outside of much progress. Furthermore, the current incarnation of the MRI solicitation seems to limit MRIs to single instruments, thus excluding them as a mechanism to fund infrastructure for facilities that might operate networks of instruments. Even if NSF solves this mid-scale infrastructure program, it strikes me that the success of a program that is dependent on integrated rather than isolated disciplinary observations is going to be governed by the success of a the weakest infrastructure proposal. I spent nearly 20 years of my career in the RIDGE and RIDGE2000 program and this effort could never fully achieve one of its goals, integrated observations of seafloor volcano-hydrothermal systems, because of challenges of getting multiple proposals funded to make observations at the same time. It is a little different for this effort, but if the goal is integrated observations, it seems really odd to fund all the components of the infrastructure separately when that is harder path to follow. So, I would suggest that at the very least the report discuss the challenges of funding mid-scale infrastructure in NSF and identify that as a topic for discussion at the first infrastructure planning workshop.

Tobias Fischer (University of New Mexico)
April 29, 2017 - 11:01:43

Dear writing team, Congratulations on a fantastic report that well captures the discussions at the meeting. Great diagrams and images. Thank you for your hard work on this. Here some comments: I very much appreciate the gas chemistry is on diagram 3.1. You may change to "gas chemistry and flux" if it fits into the available space on the figure. p. 34 Columbia needs to be changed to Colombia Section 5: Link between hazards and science: no volcano hazards mentioned in this section. This section should also emphasize needed improvements of probabilistic methods for volcano eruption forecasting and hazards. These models need to be based on physical and chemical measurements in near real time to produce a physical volcano model as you also show in Box 7.6. Section 8.4 (p.52) International capacity building. An excellent example is also the Swedish 'Network of atmospheric and volcanic change (NOVAC)' that has been implemented about 10 years ago and is still going and growing in many countries around the world to monitor volcanic gas emissions. This network has resulted in close collaboration between volcano observatories, universities and government agencies to monitor volcanoes and assess hazards. Also the DCO DECADE network has resulted in a international volcanic gas monitoring network for science and for eruption prediction. In both cases capacity is built locally by supplying monitoring instrumentation that is maintained at the local level and training of local scientists in maintenance and data interpretation. Thank you for considering these comments and congratulations again on excellent work. Tobias

Geoff Abers (Cornell)
May 01, 2017 - 7:22:10

The SZ4D plan is spectacular in its breadth and is overall an exciting document. Of course, I see a couple areas that could be strengthened. One is that this plan under-sells the contribution that structural seismology will make to understanding the deeper parts of subduction systems. The primary constraints we have on geometry, composition, and arguably temperature and fluid distribution come from seismic imaging. Seismology remains the only tool that can provide relatively unambiguous depths to boundaries or other structures within the earth. The field has seen great advances over the last decade, with high-density array studies targeting upper mantle structure, a much better theoretical framework for interpreting seismic parameters, and impressive results emerging from EarthScope. Yet the document is startling in having no figures showing earthquake-seismic imaging results, for example among spectacular recent imaging from Japan, several parts of the Andes, New Zealand, Alaska, Cascadia, Mexico, Central America, and the Aegean (among many). Images would complement well the text in 2.2, and/or some of the boxes on international efforts. I would be happy to help identify something. There is ample room, e.g. in 4.5 (Frontiers) to emphasize that these technologies that have great potential here to contribute. Also, Figure 3.1 somehow misses seismic imaging as a useful tool - it uses “seismology” to mean “seismicity” but nothing at the time scales of 1E11 – 1E16 yr where imaging provides a primary constraint. The lists of “facilities” in sections 7.1-7.2 would benefit from mentioning a broader host of seismic, geodetic, electromagnetic, analytical and experimental on-shore facilities seem likely to be needed, beyond the offshore ones. Overall, the report seems odd in its neglect of this large and thriving field. A related benefit of a clearer presence of imaging would be to strengthen the motivation for models that examine processes at long time scales (>>decadal) and great depths. I would think a central part of SZ4D would be to actually test models and develop a tight interplay between observations and modeling; this requires thinking hard about what observations are possible and what are not. Beyond that, there is a tremendous opportunity to integrate the updip thrust zone and deeper parts of subduction zones where magmas originate; that could be strengthened. This requires thinking about the plate interface between the megathrust locked zone and the arc source region in probably some new ways, as the EU “ZIP” program is starting to do. The surface processes section (section 2.4) seems to be using “subduction zone” in a very different way than the rest of the document: that section talks about collisional, orogenic processes not the oceanic subduction prevalent throughout the rest of the document (which usually does not produce mountains). It seems unrelated, the way it is written. The MARGINS experience with Source-to-Sink showed that a disconnected surface process component is tough to maintain. This is a community with a very exciting set of approaches and problems and would be good to have them integrated into core investigations in SZ4D. Overall this is an exciting plan, and it is good to see it is moving forward. I suspect that the kinds of science I am discussing will be part of SZ4D regardless, I just think there is an opportunity to make use of their potential contributions to make the overall case stronger.

Donna Charlevoix (UNAVCO)
May 01, 2017 - 6:11:16

The efforts to include capacity building (CB) efforts and education and outreach (EO) from the beginning of the SZ4D initiative is applauded. There is much opportunity to weave these efforts within the science efforts especially of existing groups and organizations engaged in CB/EO. I note that while section 8 is devoted to a framework for CB/EO, these topics are not a part of section 9 that outlines things that can be done now to advance the ideas in the workshop report, nor articulated in table 9.1. There is a recommendation to develop a planning committee. It is critical that any planning committee include members or representatives with expertise in CB and EO. NSF currently funds organizations and varied PIs to support CB/EO activities. These existing organizations should be brought to the table to ensure that any efforts to support Broader Impacts move forward in tandem with the SZ4D science plan.

Abigail Jiménez (Centre de Recerca Matemàtica, Spain)
April 18, 2017 - 9:17:13

I think the SZ4D Initiative is a great opportunity for Geophysical research to start answering the big questions society demands nowadays about the devastating events that have occurred recently and that have killed so many. I agree that the effort must be worldwide in order for it to be effective. The Earth is the only laboratory we have to test our hypothesis about what is occurring in subduction zones, the places where those disasters are originated. However, I have major concerns about the theoretical background of the initiative relating to seismic occurrence. Firstly, the assumption of the seismic gap hypothesis as the starting point. That hypothesis has been rejected in a simple statistical test several times [Kagan and Jackson, 1994; Rong et al., 2003]. From my point of view, that hypothesis should be removed from the proposal. Mainly because the initiative is sufficiently sound without it. The fact that we need to understand subduction zones much better is reason enough for the initiative. I think that introducing a theoretical background that has been shown not to pass simple statistical tests could diminish the strength of the proposal. A throughout review of earthquake predictability has been made by Jordan et al. [2009], and I think that could be a better starting point for establishing the theoretical background on seismic occurrence in this proposal. Our basic understanding of earthquake physics is that the stress is being accumulated on certain regions due to the plates' motion, and that, whenever that stress surpasses the strength of the material, it ruptures, producing an earthquake. To study how the stress is building up in subduction zones, to monitor stress and strain production, and observing as best we can the properties of the materials in those regions is the goal, I think, of this initiative. As you mention in page 8, “Some seismologists hold the view that any subduction zone is capable of producing an M9 earthquake, contrary to the more orthodox view that different subduction zones have different properties that lead to different seismic outcomes. Some creep slowly, some fail in small earthquakes, and still other are capable of catastrophic large earthquakes. Segment boundaries appear to be persistent in some cases, yet at other times ruptures proceed right across apparent segment boundaries, even for the same subduction systems.” The question you pose “Are major earthquakes more likely to occur as time since the last major event increases?” is going to be answered by observing those quantities, without the need of introducing the seismic gap hypothesis. As you mention, sometimes they occur on reported seismic gaps, but sometimes they don't. Of course that happens, since the hypothesis has been rejected already. You would have some instances where they match the hypothesis, but that does not mean that it is statistically sound. The fact that all those factors are going to be monitored is enough for this proposal to be strong, because they are physical quantities that have been identified as important in the seismic process, in lab experiments and in actual earthquakes. Another issue that concerns me is the treatment of precursory phenomena. In Jordan et al. [2009], again, a review of where seismologists stand on that topic is thoroughly explained. Giving examples for Tohoku and Iquique is important, but those precursory phenomena are, as always, identified in hindsight. There is not usually distinction between foreshocks, mainshocks and aftershocks in seismic models, because these definitions depend on what we understand by mainshock. It is usually the biggest event, but that does not mean is the originating one. Actually, it would all be a continuum of events triggering others by introducing stress changes on the neighbouring faults. So, in general, while I agree on the necessity of understanding what happens on those regions where the most disastrous events occur, by observing directly what happens, I think a more careful statistical analysis should be given to this initiative. I understand that the proposal includes two different approaches: the first one is the long-term observation of subduction zones, where no foreseeable outcome in terms of models can be done (although some informed guesses can be made), and then controlled experiments. I think it is of utmost importance to emphasize the statistical tools that will be used to evaluate the outcomes of these experiments. The CSEP (Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability) project is a good example of how to formalize those tests. I clearly see how the seismic gap hypothesis can be easily understood by the population, since it is an intuitive way of explaining what is happening in the Earth. However, scientific rigour should not be disregarded in order to fulfil a desire to be taken into account for funding with a loose explanation. I think that deters the strength of the initiative. Moreover, whenever any of those gaps identified as “more likely” to rupture are not the ones that finally produce a major disaster, the whole initiative could be in danger of discredit because of it. Actually, the complexity of the whole thing makes it so difficult to forecast where the next major event is going to occur. It is what makes checking “seismic gaps” so inefficient to be prepared for such threats. We don't want another Parkfield experiment where, sure enough, much insight and theoretical advances has produced, but that was thought of as the definite project to understanding earthquake predictability. I don't know how you could explain again to society the failure of an experiment where we already know that could happen. I think you can avoid that from the very beginning by being rigorous and careful about what you say. To explain why it is important to study those places in the long term, and to layout a set of statistical tools for testing those experiments before they are performed is, from my point of view, the optimal way of convincing governments and sponsors to provide support to this initiative in the long term. I think that, apart from all the other topics that are covered in the initiative, a special task would be providing sound statistical tools for testing all the models that will be proposed with the new observations. I believe that would give strength and scientific rigour to the proposal.

Foteini Vervelidou (GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ) Potsdam)
May 02, 2017 - 1:33:08

I read the report with great interest. My specialization is the magnetic field of the Earth’s lithosphere. I am a postdoc at GFZ, Section 2.3 Earth’s magnetic field. My comment concerns the fact that no mention is made on using the Earth’s magnetic field as a tool in deciphering subduction zones. I understand this to be due to the fact that no research has been done recently on this topic. However, there have been several relevant papers in the ‘80s and ‘90s based on MAGSAT satellite data (e.g., Frey, GRL, 1982; Clark et al., GRL, 1985; Arkani-Hamed and Strangway, Tectonophysics, 1987), on aeromagnetic data (e.g., Blakely et al., Geology, 2005) and on marine magnetic data (Okubo et al., Tectonophysics, 1991; Okubo and Matsunaga, JGR, 1994). According to these studies, subduction zones generate a strong magnetic field signal due to the magnetization contrast between the cold, subducted oceanic crust and the surrounding hotter nonmagnetic mantle and due to local variations of the Curie isotherm. Serpentinization plays also a key role. By fitting even simple shape models to the observed magnetic anomalies, properties of the subduction zones such as its thermal state, its lengths and dip can be inferred. Since the ‘90s, the geomagnetic community has made significant progress both in acquiring higher resolution satellite data (satellites Oersted, CHAMP, current satellite mission Swarm) and in compiling together all available aeromagnetic and marine magnetic data (World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map (WDMAM) project, This, in combination with advances in data processing and modelling techniques, has led to global magnetic field models of much higher spatial resolution. Advances in the interpretation of the magnetic field signal in terms of sources’ properties have also taken place. Based on the above, in my opinion, geomagnetism is currently in a good state, when combined with input from other disciplines already mentioned in the report, to contribute to our understanding of subduction zones. Personally, I am very much interested in this topic and would be glad if I could contribute to your SZ4D Initiative.

Download white papers: ZIP Archive or Merged PDF


Author Title Affiliation Date Submitted
Aaron Wech A boatload of science USGS - Alaska Volcano Observatory 09/23/16
Adam Kent Have we adequately characterized the volcanic flux in Cascadia and other subduction zones? College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University 09/23/16
Andreas Rietbrock Subduction Zone Observatory and beyond: Towards modelling guided global-scale observations University of Liverpool 09/23/16
Andrew Newman An opportunity to image the complete seismic cycle exists at the Nicoya Seismic Cycle Observatory (NSCO) Georgia Institute of Technology 09/23/16
Andrew Smye An inter-disciplinary effort toward constraining the initial hydration state of the slab mantle Penn State 09/23/16
Andy Frassetto A Subduction Zone Observatory Based on Lessons from USArray and Employing a Potential Framework in Latin America IRIS 09/19/16
Anne Meltzer Earthquake Rapid Response in Subduction Zone Observatories Lehigh University 09/23/16
Anne Trehu PICTURES and CEVICHE: controlled source seismic experiments to probe the relationship between subduction zone slip and geologic structure in Chile Oregon State University 09/23/16
Ben Edwards The role of volcano-ice interactions in understanding subduction zone magmatism Dickinson College 09/14/16
Christy Till The Role of Social Sciences and Humanities in Facilitating Interdisciplinary Subduction Zone Science Arizona State University 10/05/16
Dave Chadwell Campaign-style GPS-Acoustic with Wave Gliders and permanent seafloor benchmarks UCSD/Scripps Institution of Oceanography 09/23/16
David Fee Integrating Infrasound into a Future SZO University of Alaska Fairbanks 09/23/16
David W. Scholl Global Observations Identify Two Reinforcing Reasons Why the Aleutian-Alaska Subduction Zone is Prone to Rupture in High Magnitude Earthquakes USGS, Menlo Park, CA, and University of Alaska Fairbanks 09/22/16
Diana Roman A vision for community-scale volcano science activities under the auspices of a Subduction Zone Observatory Carnegie Institution for Science 09/23/16
Donna Shillington Marine active-source seismic data: an essential ingredient of the SZO Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University 09/23/16
Emily E. Brodsky Observatories for capturing 4-D Strain, Fluid-flow, Seismicity, and Tsunamigenesis UC Santa Cruz 09/23/16
Enrique Cabral-Cano TLALOCNet: A Continuous GPS-Met Backbone in Mexico for Seismotectonic, Subsidence and Atmospheric Research. Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 10/20/16
Estelle Chaussard Seamless integration of multidisciplinary datasets for Subduction Zone Science University at Buffalo 09/19/16
Frederik Tilmann Towards the vision of a global long-term SZO: Harnessing submarine telecommunications cables for earth monitoring Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ) - German Research Centre for Geosciences 09/23/16
Gavin Hayes Advancing Knowledge of Subduction Zone Earthquakes U.S. Geological Survey 09/22/16
Gene Yogodzinski Lessons Learned From Along-Strike Changes In Aleutian Volcanic Rock Compositions University of South Carolina 09/23/16
Geoff Abers An Alaska-Aleutian Subduction Observatory Cornell University 09/23/16
Hector Mora-Paez What do we expect from the SZO in capacity building? Colombian Geological Survey 10/23/16
Hitoshi Kawakatsu Izu-Ogasawara (Bonin) Arc as integrated Subduction Zone Observatory - Is there aseismic subduction zone after all? - ERI, Univ of Tokyo 10/20/16
John Lyons The Sweet Sound of Hydroacoustics in the Subduction Zone Observatory USGS - Alaska Volcano Observatory 09/23/16
John N. Louie Pacific Plate Dynamics from HUMOUR: Tracing the Base of the Plate from the Hikurangi Subduction Margin to Outer Rise Nevada Seismological Lab, University of Nevada, Reno 09/21/16
John Orcutt Extending Seismogeodetic Observations to the Oceans UCSD/Scripps Institution of Oceanography 09/21/16
Kelin Wang Study megathrust creep to understand megathrust earthquakes Pacific Geoscience Centre, Geological Survey of Canada, 09/22/16
Ken Creager Harnessing the full arsenal of observations to study slow slip, including seismic arrays and borehole instruments University of Washington 09/23/16
Kerry Sieh The Sunda subduction zone as a target for a Subduction Zone Observatory Earth Observatory of Singapore 09/27/16
Lara S. Wagner Seismic Contributions to a Multi-Disciplinary Subduction Zone Observatory Carnegie Institution for Science 09/22/16
Lidia Torres Bernhard Subduction Zones Observatory - A set challenge, a scientific need! Instituto Hondureño De Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras 09/26/16
Marcos Moreno Improving spatiotemporal resolution of megathrust kinematics with an exceptionally dense continuous GPS deployment GFZ Potsdam 09/23/16
Marino Protti Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica: A unique opportunity for inland drilling and instrumenting of the seismogenic zone of large megathrust earthquakes Observatorio Vulcanológico y Sismológico de Costa Rica-Universidad Nacional (OVSICORI-UNA) 09/22/16
Masa Kinoshita Onland-seafloor-drilling integrated observatory for dynamic imaging of earthquake and volcanic eruption -Challenge of the spatio-temporal informatics in subduction zones- Earthquake Research Institute, The University of Tokyo 09/23/16
Maureen Feineman ExTerra: Exploring Subduction through the Study of Exhumed Terranes The Pennsylvania State University 09/23/16
Maximiliano J. Bezada On the need for a comprehensive synthetic data set for the benchmarking and testing of subsurface imaging algorithms University of Minnestoa 09/23/16
Meng (Matt) Wei Seafloor Geodesy for A Future Subduction Zone Observatory University of Rhode Island 09/22/16
Michael Schmitz SAMARRAY – A Seismological Backbone Linked To A South American Subduction Zone Observatory FUNVISIS 09/23/16
Myo Thant New Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Models of Myanmar Geology Department, University of Mandalay, Myanmar; Myanmar Earthquake Committee 09/22/16
Nicholas W. Hayman Deep Submergence Vehicle Applications for Subduction Zone Research University of Texas, Institute for Geophysics 09/23/16
Paul Bodin Extending the Scientific and Societal Reach of an SZO with a Coastal Change Collaboratory (C3) University of Washington 10/23/16
Paul Segall Subduction Zone Observatory Multidisciplinary System Scale Models of Volcanic Systems Stanford University 09/26/16
Paul Wallace What Controls Rates of Magma Production, Volcanic Eruption, and Crustal Growth at Arcs? University of Oregon 10/25/16
Peter B. Kelemen Some things to consider Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University 09/24/16
Peter Barry Biology Meets Subduction – a Collaborative and Multi-disciplinary Deep Carbon Field Initiative Oxford 09/23/16
Peter Kelemen The leading edge of the mantle wedge: Structural and metamorphic studies of peridotite thrust over metasediments & basalts Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University 09/23/16
Philipp Ruprecht Bringing the scientific and economic geology communities together as part of the Subduction Zone Observatory University of Nevada, Reno 09/23/16
Roland von Huene A Possible Tectonic Source Mechanism Of The 1946 Unimak Island Tsunami In Reprocessed Seismic Data USGS emeritus 09/12/16
Roy D. Hyndman Global Studies of Subduction Initiation: Example of the Queen Charlotte margin of Haida Gwaii Pacific Geoscience Centre, Geol. Survey Canada, Sidney, B.C. 09/06/16
Roy D. Hyndman CCArray Current and Past Plate Interactions within the Canadian Cordillera and Across the North American Plate Boundary Pacific Geosci. Centre, Geol. Surv. Canada 09/23/16
Samer Naif Mapping plate boundary fluids at a Subduction Zone Observatory using electromagnetic soundings Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University 09/23/16
Sang-Mook Lee Factors controlling the architecture of backarc basins: Case in point of the East Sea/Sea of Japan Seoul National University 09/23/16
Susan Beck Latin America Subduction Zone Observatory (LASZO) Concept University of Arizona 09/23/16
Susanne M Straub Arc Volcanism and Climate Change: The Marine Tephra Archive Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University 09/14/16
Taryn Lopez Linking subduction to volcanism through reanalysis and synthesis of existing data University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute & Alaska Volcano Observatory 09/22/16
Tobias Fischer Timing of Volcano Recharge and Run-up to Explosive Eruptions University of New Mexico 10/21/16
William Wilcock Sustained Offshore Geophysical Monitoring in Cascadia University of Washington 09/25/16
Xyoli Pérez-Campos Maximum expected magnitude, interface coupling and seismic cycle in the Mexican Subduction Zone Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 10/22/16
Yehuda Bock The Advantages of Seismogeodetic Investment in the Subduction Zone Observatory: Land-based upgrades in the Northern Pacific Scripps, UCSD 09/24/16
Yoshihiko Tamura Crust-Mantle Connections in the Kermadec Arc JAMSTEC, Yokosuka 237-0061, Japan 09/23/16
Yue (Merry) Cai Studies of Exhumed Plutonic and Volcanic Rocks in Arcs Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University 09/23/16
Important Dates
  • Applications:
    Feb 19th – Jun 1st
  • Webinar Registration
    Mon, Sep 12th, 12am
  • Workshop Reports
    Workshop Location