Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Technical Review
  • Published:

Advances in geophysical forensic event monitoring

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume 6, pages 521–534 (2025) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Forensic analysis of man-made, non-nuclear events (such as industrial accidents, explosion experiments and mine collapses) has become more frequent and detailed owing to advancements in geophysical monitoring. In this Technical Review, we demonstrate how geophysical forensic monitoring using seismic, infrasound and hydroacoustic recordings provides insights on events in the solid earth, atmosphere and underwater. Advanced techniques, including machine-learning-based models, have been developed to detect, identify and investigate these events, providing information on location, subevents, sources and explosive yield. The increase in data availability, application of advanced methods and computation and the growth of multitechnology approaches have increased the accuracy of forensic event analysis and enabled more realistic characterization of uncertainties. For example, the 2020 Beirut explosion in Lebanon demonstrated that various seismic, acoustic and other methods could be used to estimate explosive yield (and yield uncertainties) of about 1 ktonne, providing confidence in the application of these methods to smaller events where data are available. However, forensic investigations remain largely limited to known events with identified sources. Increased access to data, sophisticated analysis methods and high-resolution earth models will improve forensic event analysis further, enabling civil and scientific applications, such as localization in the search for the lost ARA San Juan submarine.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Examples of events for forensic analysis.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 2: Event identification using machine learning.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 3: Seismic estimates of collapse volumes.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 4: Yield analysis for the 4 August 2020 Beirut, Lebanon explosion.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 5: Infrasound observations of rocket launches and reentries.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 6: Comparison of location estimates for the ARA San Juan submarine.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

References  

  1. Dahlman, O., Mackby, J., Mykkeltveit, S. & Haak, H. Detect and Deter: Can Countries Verify the Nuclear Test Ban? (Springer, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1676-6 (2011).

  2. Pilger, C., Ceranna, L. & Bönnemann, C. Monitoring compliance with the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty — contributions by the German National Data Center. Geologisches Jahrbuch. https://www.schweizerbart.de/publications/detail/isbn/9783510968589 (2017).

  3. Schwardt, M., Pilger, C., Gaebler, P., Hupe, P. & Ceranna, L. Natural and anthropogenic sources of seismic, hydroacoustic, and infrasonic waves: waveforms and spectral characteristics (and their applicability for sensor calibration). Surv. Geophys. 43, 1265–1361 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Thirlaway, H. I. S. Forensic seismology. Earthq. Inform. Bull. 11, 156–164 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Koper, K. D., Wallace, T. C., Taylor, S. R. & Hartse, H. E. Reply to “Comment on ‘Forensic seismology and the sinking of the Kursk’”. Eos Trans. AGU 82, 244–244 (2001b).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Michelini, A. et al. INSTANCE — the Italian seismic dataset for machine learning. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 5509–5544 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Li, L. et al. Recent advances and challenges of waveform‐based seismic location methods at multiple scales. Rev. Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000667 (2020).

  8. Walter, W. R. & Wen, L. Preface to the focus section on North Korea’s September 2017 nuclear test and its aftermath. Seism. Res. Lett. 89, 2013–2016 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bahavar, M., Allstadt, K. E., Van Fossen, M., Malone, S. D. & Trabant, C. Exotic Seismic Events Catalog (ESEC) data product. Seism. Res. Lett. 90, 1355–1363 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fuchs, F., Schneider, F. M., Kolínský, P., Serafin, S. & Bokelmann, G. Rich observations of local and regional infrasound phases made by the AlpArray seismic network after refinery explosion. Sci. Rep. 9, 13027 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gitterman, Y. & Hofstetter, R. GT0 explosion sources for IMS infrasound calibration: charge design and yield estimation from near-source observations. Pure Appl. Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0575-4 (2012).

  12. Pilger, C., Hupe, P., Gaebler, P. & Ceranna, L. 1001 Rocket launches for space missions and their infrasonic signature. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL092262 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dando, B. D. E. et al. Identifying attacks in the Russia–Ukraine conflict using seismic array data. Nature 621, 767–772 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pasyanos, M. E., Ichinose, G. A. & Ford, S. R. Moment tensor event identification for collapses. Geophys. J. Int. 235, 635–643 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koper, K. D., Burlacu, R., Armstrong, A. D. & Herrmann, R. B. Classifying small earthquakes, explosions and collapses in the western United States using physics-based features and machine learning. Geophys. J. Int. 239, 1257–1270 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonner, J., Herrmann, R. B., Harkrider, D. & Pasyanos, M. The surface wave magnitude for the 9 October 2006 North Korean nuclear explosion. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 98, 2498–2506 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Douglas, A. Forensic seismology revisited. Surv. Geophys. 28, 1–31 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bowers, D. & Selby, N. Forensic seismology and the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37, 209–236 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Maceira, M. et al. Trends in nuclear explosion monitoring research & development — a physics perspective. https://doi.org/10.2172/1355758 (2017).

  20. Green, D. N. et al. Sixty years of forensic seismology at AWE Blacknest. Astron. Geophys. 62, 4.36–4.42 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schultz, R. et al. Hydraulic fracturing‐induced seismicity. Rev. Geophys. 58, e2019RG000695 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Atkinson, G. M., Eaton, D. W. & Igonin, N. Developments in understanding seismicity triggered by hydraulic fracturing. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 264–277 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ge, S. & Saar, M. O. Induced seismicity during geoenergy development — a hydromechanical perspective. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 127, e2021JB023141 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moein, M. J. et al. The physical mechanisms of induced earthquakes. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 4, 847–863 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Koper, K. D., Wallace, T. C., Reinke, R. E. & Leverette, J. A. Empirical scaling laws for truck bomb explosions based on seismic and acoustic data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 527–542 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang, R., Schmandt, B., Holt, M. & Koper, K. Advancing local distance discrimination of explosions and earthquakes with joint P/S and ML−MC classification. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL095721 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Minson, S. E. & Dreger, D. S. Stable inversions for complete moment tensors. Geophys. J. Int. 174, 585–592 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ford, S. R., Dreger, D. S. & Walter, W. R. Source characterization of the 6 August 2007 Crandall Canyon mine seismic event in Central Utah. Seismol. Res. Lett. 79, 637–644 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ford, S. R., Kraft, G. D. & Ichinose, G. A. Seismic moment tensor event screening. Geophys. J. Int. 221, 77–88 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pasyanos, M. E. & Chiang, A. Full moment tensor solutions of U.S. underground nuclear tests for event screening and yield estimation. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 112, 538–552 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kintner, J., Cleveland, K. M., Pippin, J. E., Modrak, R. T. & Delbridge, B. Time‐varying moment‐tensor analysis with application to buried chemical explosions. Seismol. Res. Lett. 95, 352–366 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chiang, A., Ford, S., Pasyanos, M. & Simmons, N. Bayesian inference for the seismic moment tensor using regional waveforms and teleseismic-P polarities with a data-derived distribution of velocity models and source locations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120240226 (2025).

  33. Zhao, X. et al. Seismological investigations of two massive explosions in Tianjin, China. Seismol. Res. Lett. 87, 826–836 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ma, X., Zhao, L. ‐F., Xie, X. ‐B., He, X. & Yao, Z. ‐X. Regional seismic characteristics of chemical explosions on the eastern margin of the Junggar Basin, northwest China, and of historical Semipalatinsk nuclear tests. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 111, 606–620 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bonner, J. L., Russell, D. R. & Reinke, R. E. Modeling surface waves from above ground and underground explosions in alluvium and limestone. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 103, 2953–2970 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Murphy, K. R., Mayeda, K. & Walter, W. R. Lg-Coda methods applied to Nevada Test Site events: spectral peaking and yield estimation. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99, 441–448 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pasyanos, M. E., Walter, W. R. & Mayeda, K. M. Exploiting regional amplitude envelopes: a case study for earthquakes and explosions in the Korean Peninsula. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102, 1938–1948 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pasyanos, M. E. & Ford, S. R. Determining the source characteristics of explosions near the Earth’s surface. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 3786–3792 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yoo, S.-H. Stable and transportable seismic yield estimation from local full-envelope template matching. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 107, 660–673 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bonner, J., Waxler, R., Gitterman, Y. & Hofstetter, R. Seismo‐acoustic energy partitioning at near‐source and local distances from the 2011 Sayarim explosions in the Negev Desert, Israel. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 103, 741–758 (2013b).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Templeton, D. C. et al. Seismic models for near-surface explosion yield estimation in alluvium and sedimentary rock. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 108, 1384–1398 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Brocher, T. M. Detonation charge size versus coda magnitude relations in California and Nevada. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 2089–2105 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Booth, D. C. The relationship between seismic local magnitude ML and charge weight for UK explosions. NERC Open Research Archive. https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/8570 (2009).

  44. Delbridge, B. G. et al. Source characterization of the declared North Korean nuclear tests from regional distance coda wave spectral ratios. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 128, e2022JB024728 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Aleqabi, G. I., Wysession, M. E. & Ghalib, H. A. A. Characterization of seismic sources from Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT): examples from Baghdad. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106, 23–41 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pasyanos, M. E. Estimating explosion yields using moment tensor solutions and seismic moment. Seismol. Res. Lett. 93, 2230–2238 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ford, S. R., Pasyanos, M. E. & Chiang, A. Explosive yield estimation using regional seismic moment tensors. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 113, 2211–2226 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gibbons, S. J., Kværna, T., Tiira, T. & Kozlovskaya, E. A benchmark case study for seismic event relative location. Geophys. J. Int. 223, 1313–1326 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Drob, D. P., Picone, J. M. & Garcés, M. Global morphology of infrasound propagation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003307 (2003).

  50. Norris, D., Gibson, R. & Bongiovanni, K. Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies 541–573 (Springer New York, 2010).

  51. Le Pichon, A., Ceranna, L. & Vergoz, J. Incorporating numerical modeling into estimates of the detection capability of the IMS infrasound network. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016670 (2012).

  52. Blom, P. & Waxler, R. Impulse propagation in the nocturnal boundary layer: analysis of the geometric component. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131, 3680–3690 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Waxler, R. M., Assink, J. D., Hetzer, C. & Velea, D. NCPAprop — a software package for infrasound propagation modeling. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141, 3627 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Garcés, M. A. On infrasound standards, part 1 time, frequency, and energy scaling. InfraMatics https://doi.org/10.4236/inframatics.2013.22002 (2013).

  55. Evers, L. G. The inaudible symphony: on the detection and source identification of atmospheric infrasound, TU Delft, 170pp. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:4de38d6f-8f68-4706-bf34-4003d3dff0ce (2008).

  56. Cansi, Y. & Pichon, A. L. Handbook of Signal Processing in Acoustics 1425–1435 (Springer New York, 2008).

  57. Poste, B. et al. The multichannel maximum-likelihood (MCML) method: a new approach for infrasound detection and wave parameter estimation. Geophys. J. Int. 232, 1099–1112 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hupe, P., Ceranna, L., Le Pichon, A., Matoza, R. S. & Mialle, P. International monitoring system infrasound data products for atmospheric studies and civilian applications. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4201-2022 (2022).

  59. Marchetti, E., Lacanna, G., Le Pichon, A., Piccinini, D. & Ripepe, M. Evidence of large infrasonic radiation induced by earthquake interaction with alluvial sediments. Seismol. Res. Lett. 87, 678–684 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Shani‐Kadmiel, S., Assink, J. D., Smets, P. S. & Evers, L. G. Seismoacoustic coupled signals from earthquakes in central Italy: epicentral and secondary sources of infrasound. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 427–435 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Walker, K. T. et al. An analysis of ground shaking and transmission loss from infrasound generated by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 12–831 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hernandez, B. et al. Estimating the ground‐motion distribution of the 2016 Mw 6.2 Amatrice, Italy, earthquake using remote infrasound observations. Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 2227–2236 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Blom, P. & Waxler, R. Modeling and observations of an elevated, moving infrasonic source: eigenray methods. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141, 2681–2692 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Blom, P., Marcillo, O. & Arrowsmith, S. Analysis and modeling of infrasound from a four-stage rocket launch. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139, 3134–3138 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Pilger, C., Gaebler, P., Hupe, P., Ott, T. & Drolshagen, E. Global monitoring and characterization of infrasound signatures by large fireballs. Atmosphere 11, 83 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Edwards, W. N., Brown, P. G. & ReVelle, D. O. Estimates of meteoroid kinetic energies from observations of infrasonic airwaves. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 68, 1136–1160 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Whitaker, R. W., Sondoval, T. D. & Mutschlecner, J. P. Recent infrasound analysis. In Proc. 25th Seismic Research Review-Nuclear Explosion Monitoring: Building the Knowledge Base 646–654 (National Nuclear Security Administration, 2003).

  68. Kim, K., Rodgers, A. R., Garces, M. A. & Myers, S. C. Empirical acoustic source model for chemical explosions in air. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 111, 2862–2880 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Howe, B. M. et al. Observing the oceans acoustically. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 426 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Nichols, S. M. & Bradley, D. L. Use of noise correlation matrices to interpret ocean ambient noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 145, 2337–2349 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Gibbons, S. J. The hydroacoustic network of the CTBT international monitoring system: access and exploitation. J. Peace Nucl. Disarmament 5, 452–468 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Oliveira, T. C., Metz, D., Lin, Y. T., Saragiotis, C. & Begnaud, M. L. Conversion from seismic to underwater sound waves along the Louisville Seamount Chain. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 155, 3371–3379 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Prior, M. K. & Brown, D. J. Estimation of depth and yield of underwater explosions from first and second bubble-oscillation periods. IEEE J. Ocean Eng. 35, 103–112 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Kim, S. G. Forensic seismology vis-à-vis an underwater explosion for the ROKS Cheonan sinking in the Yellow Sea of the Korean peninsula. Int. J. Phys. Appl. 6, 073–089 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Gromasheva, O. S. & Zakharov, V. A. Estimation of the underwater explosion depth from the modified cepstral analysis of sea reverberation. Acoust. Phys. 48, 273–278 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Trevorrow, M. V. Cepstral Analysis of Boat and Ship Underwater Acoustic Signatures. DRDC Scientific Report, DRDC-RDDC-2022-R104. https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc397/p815262_A1b.pdf (2022).

  77. Metz, D., Watts, A. B., Grevemeyer, I., Rodgers, M. & Paulatto, M. Ultra‐long‐range hydroacoustic observations of submarine volcanic activity at Monowai, Kermadec arc. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 1529–1536 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Oliveira, T. C., Lin, Y. T. & Porter, M. B. Underwater sound propagation modeling in a complex shallow water environment. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 751327 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Arrowsmith, S. J., Johnson, J. B., Drob, D. P. & Hedlin, M. A. The seismoacoustic wavefield: a new paradigm in studying geophysical phenomena. Rev. Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010RG000335 (2010).

  80. Assink, J., Averbuch, G., Shani‐Kadmiel, S., Smets, P. & Evers, L. A seismo‐acoustic analysis of the 2017 North Korean nuclear test. Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 2025–2033 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Pasyanos, M. E. & Kim, K. Seismoacoustic analysis of chemical explosions at the Nevada National Security Site. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 908–924 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Pilger, C. et al. Infrasound and seismoacoustic signatures of the 28 September 2018 Sulawesi super-shear earthquake. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 2811–2825 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Dannemann Dugick, F., Koch, C., Berg, E., Arrowsmith, S. & Albert, S. A new decade in seismoacoustics (2010–2022). Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 113, 1390–1423 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Tibi, R., Koper, K. D., Pankow, K. L. & Young, C. J. Discrimination of anthropogenic events and tectonic earthquakes in Utah using a quadratic discriminant function approach with local distance amplitude ratios. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 108, 2788–2800 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Carmichael, J., Nemzek, R., Symons, N. & Begnaud, M. A method to fuse multiphysics waveforms and improve predictive explosion detection: theory, experiment and performance. Geophys. J. Int. 222, 1195–1212 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Williams, B. J. et al. Multiphenomenology explosion monitoring (MultiPEM): a general framework for data interpretation and yield estimation. Geophys. J. Int. 226, 14–32 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Mousavi, S. M. & Beroza, G. C. Machine learning in earthquake seismology. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 51, 105–129 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Dowla, F. U., Taylor, S. R. & Anderson, R. W. Seismic discrimination with artificial neural networks: preliminary results with regional spectral data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 80, 1346–1373 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Miao, F., Carpenter, N. S., Wang, Z., Holcomb, A. S. & Woolery, E. W. High‐accuracy discrimination of blasts and earthquakes using neural networks with multiwindow spectral data. Seismol. Res. Lett. 91, 1646–1659 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Walter, W. R. et al. Body‐wave methods of distinguishing between explosions, collapses, and earthquakes: application to recent events in North Korea. Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 2131–2138 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Yang, Z., Tian, X., Wang, X., Wang, Y. & Zhang, X. Discrimination of earthquakes, explosions, and collapses based on the deep learning: applications to DiTing 2.0 dataset. Comp. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2024.105830 (2024).

  92. Wang, T., Bian, Y., Zhang, Y. & Hou, X. Classification of earthquakes, explosions and mining-induced earthquakes based on XGBoost algorithm. Comp. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2022.105242 (2023).

  93. Tang, L., Zhang, M. & Wen, L. Support vector machine classification of seismic events in the Tianshan orogenic belt. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 125, e2019JB018132 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Wang, T., Bian, Y., Zhang, Y. & Hou, X. Using artificial intelligence methods to classify different seismic events. Seismol. Res. Lett. 94, 1–16 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Wang, T., Bian, Y., You, Q., Ren, M. & Yang, Q. Classification study of earthquakes and explosions in North Korea and adjacent regions. Seismol. Res. Lett. 96, 421–434 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Zhu, W. & Beroza, G. C. PhaseNet: a deep-neural-network-based seismic arrival-time picking method. Geophys. J. Int. 216, 261–273 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Zhu, W. et al. QuakeFlow: a scalable machine-learning-based earthquake monitoring workflow with cloud computing. Geophys. J. Int. 232, 684–693 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Mousavi, S. M. & Beroza, G. C. Deep-learning seismology. Science 377, eabm4470 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Steinberg, A., Gaebler, P., Hartmann, G., Lehr, J. & Pilger, C. Deep neural networks based denoising of regional seismic waveforms and impact on analysis of North Korean nuclear tests. Pure Appl. Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-024-03491-3 (2024).

  100. Johnson, C. W., Ben‐Zion, Y., Meng, H. & Vernon, F. Identifying different classes of seismic noise signals using unsupervised learning. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL088353 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Le Bras, R. et al. NET-VISA from cradle to adulthood. A machine-learning tool for seismo-acoustic automatic association. Pure Appl. Geophys. 178, 2437–2458 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Lloyd, S. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 28, 129–137 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Murti, M. A., Junior, R., Ahmed, A. N. & Elshafie, A. Earthquake multi-classification detection based velocity and displacement data filtering using machine learning algorithms. Sci. Rep. 12, 21200 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Peng, P., He, Z., Wang, L. & Jiang, Y. Microseismic records classification using capsule network with limited training samples in underground mining. Sci. Rep. 10, 13925 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y. & Haffner, P. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86, 2278–2324 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Linville, L., Pankow, K. & Draelos, T. Deep learning models augment analyst decisions for event discrimination. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 3643–3651 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Tian, X. et al. Discrimination of earthquake and quarry blast based on multi-input convolutional neural network. Chin. J. Geophys. 65, 1802–1812 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Maguire, R., Schmandt, B., Wang, R., Kong, Q. & Sanchez, P. Generalization of deep‐learning models for classification of local distance earthquakes and explosions across various geologic settings. Seismol. Res. Lett. 95, 2229–2238 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Kong, Q. et al. Combining deep learning with physics based features in explosion-earthquake discrimination. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL098645 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Kong, Q., Walter, W.R., Wang, R. & Schmandt, B., Evaluating physics‐informed neural network performance for seismic discrimination between earthquakes and explosions. Seismol. Res. Lett. 96, 147–156 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Pasyanos, M. E. & Myers, S. C. The coupled location/depth/yield problem for North Korea’s declared nuclear tests. Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 2059–2067 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Voytan, D. P., Lay, T., Chaves, E. J. & Ohman, J. T. Yield estimates for the six North Korean nuclear tests from teleseismic P wave modeling and intercorrelation of P and Pn recordings. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 4916–4939 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Springer, D. L., Pawloski, G. A., Ricca, J. L., Rohrer, R. F. & Smith, D. K. Seismic source summary for all U.S. below-surface nuclear explosions. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 1806–1840 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Snelson, C. M. et al. Chemical explosion experiments to improve nuclear test monitoring. Eos Trans. AGU 94, 237 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Rougier, E. & Patton, H. J. Seismic source functions from free-field ground motions recorded on SPE: implications for source models of small, shallow explosions. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 120, 3459–3478 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Mellors, R. J. et al. The Source Physics Experiments large N array. Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 1618–1628 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Vorobiev, O., Ezzedine, S., Antoun, T. & Glenn, L. On the generation of tangential ground motion by underground explosions in jointed rocks. Geophys. J. Int. 200, 1651–1661 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Steedman, D. W., Bradley, C. R., Rougier, E. & Coblentz, D. D. Phenomenology and modeling of explosion‐generated shear energy for the Source Physics Experiments. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106, 42–53 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Pitarka, A. et al. Analysis of ground motion from an underground chemical explosion. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105, 2390–2410 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Darrh, A., Bodmer, M. & Poppeliers, C. Spatially dependent seismic wavefield scattering from an underground chemical explosion: analysis of the Source Physics Experiment dry alluvium geology large‐N array. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 114, 2251–2269 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Myers, S. C. et al. A Multi-physics Experiment for Low-yield Nuclear Explosion Monitoring. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Technical Report LLNL-TR-864107, 17 pp. (2024).

  122. Pasyanos, M. E., Kim, K., Ichinose, G. A. & The PE1 Experiment Team. Source characterization at low yields from Physics Experiment One A. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120250042 (2025).

  123. Nayak, A. & Dreger, D. S. Source inversion of seismic events associated with the sinkhole at Napoleonville Salt Dome, Louisiana using a 3-D velocity model. Geophys. J. Int. 214, 1808–1829 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Swedish National Seismic Network. Kiruna region earthquakes, blasts and mining induced events [Data set]. Uppsala University. https://doi.org/10.18159/KIR-EBI23 (2024).

  125. Rathnayaka, S. et al. Testing the P/S amplitude seismic source discriminant at local distances using seismic events within and surrounding the Kloof Gold mine, South Africa, and the Kiruna iron ore mine, Northern Sweden. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 114, 2237–2250 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. United States nuclear tests: July 1945 through September 1992, Department of Energy DOE/NV-209, Rev. 16 (US Department of Energy, 2015).

  127. He, X., Zhao, L.‐F., Xie, X.‐B. & Yao, Z.‐X. High‐precision relocation and event discrimination for the 3 September 2017 underground nuclear explosion and subsequent seismic events at the North Korean test site. Seismol. Res. Lett. 89, 2042–2048 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  128. Tian, D., Yao, J. & Wen, L. Collapse and earthquake swarm after North Korea’s 3 September 2017 nuclear test. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 3976–3983 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Gaebler, P. et al. A multi-technology analysis of the 2017 North Korean nuclear test. Solid Earth 10, 59–78 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Fee, D. et al. Overview of the 2009 and 2011 Sayarim infrasound calibration experiments. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 6122–6143 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Kim, K. & Pasyanos, M. E. Seismoacoustic explosion yield and depth estimation: insights from the large surface explosion coupling experiment. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 113, 1457–1470 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Blom, P. Regional infrasonic observations from surface explosions — influence of atmospheric variations and realistic terrain. Geophys. J. Int. 235, 200–215 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Pyle, M. L. & Walter, W. R. Exploring the effects of emplacement conditions on explosion P/S ratios across local to regional distances. Seismol. Res. Lett. 93, 866–879 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Evers, L. G., Ceranna, L., Haak, H. W., Le Pichon, A. & Whitaker, R. W. A seismoacoustic analysis of the gas-pipeline explosion near Ghislenghien in Belgium. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, 417–425 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Ceranna, L., Le Pichon, A., Green, D. N. & Mialle, P. The Buncefield explosion: a benchmark for infrasound analysis across Central Europe. Geophys. J. Int. 177, 491–508 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Nippress, S. E., Nippress, A. & Green, D. N. Seismoacoustic analysis of the 7 July 2011 Abadan, Turkmenistan, explosions. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 113, 1635–1651 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Bittner, P. et al. Hydroacoustic signals detected at coastal International Monitoring System stations. Pure Appl. Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-024-03585-y (2024).

  138. Green, D. N., Vergoz, J., Gibson, R., Le Pichon, A. & Ceranna, L. Infrasound radiated by the Gerdec and Chelopechene explosions: propagation along unexpected paths. Geophys. J. Int. 185, 890–910 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Hinzen, K.-G. Seismic analysis of the accidental WWII bomb explosion in Euskirchen, Germany, on 3 January 2014. Seismol. Res. Lett. 85, 825–835 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Schneider, F. M. et al. Seismo-acoustic signals of the Baumgarten (Austria) gas explosion detected by the AlpArray seismic network. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 502, 104–114 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. Koch, K., Pilger, C., Czanik, C. & Bondár, I. The 12 December 2017 Baumgarten gas hub explosion: a case study on understanding the occurrence of a large infrasound azimuth residual and a lack of seismic observations. Pure Appl. Geophys. 177, 4957–4970 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Koch, K. & Pilger, C. A comprehensive study of infrasound signals detected from the Ingolstadt, Germany, explosion of 1 September 2018. Pure Appl. Geophys. 177, 4229–4245 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Hamama, I. et al. Investigation of near-surface chemical explosions effects using seismo-acoustic and synthetic aperture radar analyses. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 151, 1575–1592 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Park, J., Arrowsmith, S., Che, I. Y., Hayward, C. & Stump, B. The Korean infrasound catalogue (1999–2022). Geophys. J. Int. 239, 517–537 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Inbal, A. Forensic seismic evidence for precursory mobilization in Gaza leading to the October 7 Hamas attack. Seismic Rec. 4, 288–298 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Kim, K. & Pasyanos, M. E. Yield estimation of the August 2020 Beirut explosion by using physics-based propagation simulations of regional infrasound. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL101118 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Barros, L. V. et al. Seismo-acoustic signal analysis and yield estimate of the Beirut, Lebanon, accidental explosion on August 4, 2020. Brazil. J. Geophys. 39, 629–644 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Zhang, L., Zhao, L.-F., Xie, X.-B., He, X. & Yao, Z.-X. Yield estimation and event discrimination of the 4 August 2020 Beirut chemical explosion. Seismol. Res. Lett. 93, 2004–2014 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Pilger, C. et al. Yield estimation of the 2020 Beirut explosion using open access waveform and remote sensing data. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–14 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Goldstein, P. Beirut explosion yield and mushroom cloud height — effects of the source environment. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LLNL-TR-815803. https://doi.org/10.2172/1688581 (2020).

  151. Tenney, S. M., Noble, J. M., Whitaker, R. W. & ReVelle, D. O. Acoustic/infrasonic rocket engine signatures. In Unattended Ground Sensor Technologies and Applications V Vol. 5090, 30–41 (SPIE, 2003).

  152. Olson, J. Infrasound rocket signatures. In Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference Proceedings Vol. 1, 82–89. https://amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2012/POSTER/OLSON.pdf (Univ. Alaska Fairbanks, 2012).

  153. Evers, L. G., Assink, J. D. & Smets, P. S. Infrasound from the 2009 and 2017 DPRK rocket launches. Geophys. J. Int. 213, 1785–1791 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Smith, K. E., Solomon, M. L., Bryan, K. J., Smith, A. O. & Peter, A. M. Near-field infrasound classification of rocket launch signatures. In Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) Sensing XIX, Vol. 10629, 131–141 (SPIE, 2018).

  155. Kellison, M. S. et al. Community-based noise measurements of the Artemis-I mission. In Proc. Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 51 (AIP Publishing, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001786.

  156. Gee, K. L. et al. Space launch system acoustics: far-field noise measurements of the Artemis-I launch. JASA Expr. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0016878 (2023).

  157. Gee, K. L. et al. Starship super heavy acoustics: far-field noise measurements during launch and the first-ever booster catch. JASA Expr. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0034453 (2024).

  158. Pilger, C. & Hupe, P. The infrasonic signature of three exceptional rocket launches. Proc. Meet. Acoust. 52, 040006 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Garcés, M. et al. Forensic studies of infrasound from massive hypersonic sources. Eos Trans. AGU 85, 433–441 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Vergoz, J., Le Pichon, A. & Millet, C. The Antares explosion observed by the USArray: an unprecedented collection of infrasound phases recorded from the same event. Infrasound monitoring for atmospheric studies: challenges in middle atmosphere dynamics and societal benefits. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75140-5_9 (2019).

  161. Silber, E. A., Bowman, D. C. & Albert, S. A review of infrasound and seismic observations of sample return capsules since the end of the Apollo era in anticipation of the OSIRIS-REx arrival. Atmosphere 14, 1473 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Silber, E. A. et al. Geophysical observations of the 2023 September 24 OSIRIS-REx sample return capsule reentry. Planet. Sci. J. 5, 213 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Fernando, B. et al. Seismoacoustic measurements of the OSIRIS-REx re-entry with an off-grid Raspberry PiShake. Seismica https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v3i1.1154 (2024).

  164. ReVelle, D. O., Edwards, W. & Sandoval, T. D. Genesis — an artificial, low velocity ‘meteor’ fall and recovery: September 8, 2004. Meteor. Planet. Sci. 40, 895–916 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. ReVelle, D. O. & Edwards, W. N. Stardust — an artificial, low‐velocity ‘meteor’ fall and recovery: 15 January 2006. Meteor. Planet. Sci. 42, 271–299 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  166. Ishihara, Y., Hiramatsu, Y., Yamamoto, M. Y., Furumoto, M. & Fujita, K. Infrasound/seismic observation of the Hayabusa reentry: observations and preliminary results. Earth Planets Space 64, 655–660 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Sansom, E. K. et al. The scientific observation campaign of the Hayabusa-2 capsule re-entry. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 74, 50–63 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Heyburn, R., Nippress, S. E. & Bowers, D. Seismic and hydroacoustic observations from underwater explosions off the East Coast of Florida. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 108, 3612–3624 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  169. Wang, Y. et al. Analysis of nuclear explosion detection capability of IMS hydroacoustic network. Shock Vib. 2024, 2499939 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Soloway, A. G. & Dahl, P. H. Peak sound pressure and sound exposure level from underwater explosions in shallow water. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136, EL218–EL223 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  171. Dall’Osto, D. R., Dahl, P. H. & Chapman, N. R. The sound from underwater explosions. Acoust. Today 19, 12–19. https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-Sound-from-Underwater-Explosions-David-R.-DallOsto-Peter-H.-Dahl-and-N.-Ross-Chapman.pdf (2023).

  172. Metz, D., Obana, K. & Fukao, Y. Remote hydroacoustic detection of an airplane crash. Pure Appl. Geophys. 180, 1343–1351 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Kadri, U. Effect of sea-bottom elasticity on the propagation of acoustic–gravity waves from impacting objects. Sci. Rep. 9, 912 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Dall’Osto, D. R. & Duncan, A. J. Revisiting acoustic detections made in the Indian Ocean at the time of the loss of MH370. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154, A49–A49 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Kadri, U. Underwater acoustic analysis reveals unique pressure signals associated with aircraft crashes in the sea: revisiting MH370. Sci. Rep. 14, 10102 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  176. Koper, K. D., Wallace, T. C., Taylor, S. R. & Hartse, H. E. Forensic seismology and the sinking of the Kursk. Eos Trans. AGU 82, 37–46 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Kim, S. G. & Gitterman, Y. (eds) Forensic Explosion Seismology: Technologies and Applications ISBN 978-1-5275-4474-1 (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020).

  178. Dall’Osto, D. R. Source triangulation utilizing three-dimensional arrivals: application to the search for the ARA San Juan submarine. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 146, 2104–2112 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Heyburn, R., Bowers, D. & Green, D. N. Seismic and hydroacoustic observations from recent underwater events in the South Atlantic ocean. Geophys. J. Int. 223, 289–300 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Nielsen, P. L. et al. CTBTO’s data and analysis pertaining to the search for the missing Argentine submarine ARA San Juan. Pure Appl. Geophys. 178, 2557–2577 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Vergoz, J., Cansi, Y., Cano, Y. & Gaillard, P. Analysis of hydroacoustic signals associated to the loss of the Argentinian ARA San Juan submarine. Pure Appl. Geophys. 178, 2527–2556 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Prario, I. et al. Characterization of the acoustic event associated with the loss of the ARA San Juan submarine based on long-range measurements by CTBTO’s hydrophone stations. Pure Appl. Geophys. 180, 1317–1342 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Bittner, P., Le Bras, R., Mialle, P. & Nielsen, P. International data centre bulletin events triggered by controlled underwater explosions of World War 2 ordnances. Pure Appl. Geophys. 180, 1303–1315 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Stammler, K. et al. German seismic and infrasound networks contributing to the European Integrated Data Archive (EIDA). Seismol. Res. Lett. 92, 1854–1875 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. Stähler, S. C., Zenhäusern, G., Clinton, J. & Giardini, D. Locating the Nordstream explosions using polarization analysis. Seismica https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v1i1.253 (2022).

  186. Shen, Y. et al. Analysis of Nord Stream explosions using seismic recordings. Appl. Geophys. 20, 316–323 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Lund, B. et al. The Nord Stream underwater explosions: location, classification and yield estimation. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts EGU-6775. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-6775 (2023).

  188. Heyburn, R., Green, D. N., Nippress, A. & Selby, N. D. The 26 September 2022 Nord Stream events: insights from nearby seismic events. Seismic Rec. 4, 1–10 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Howe, B. M. et al. SMART cables for observing the global ocean: science and implementation. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 424 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Pasyanos, M. E., Ichinose, G. A. & Ford, S. R. Supplemental information in support of ‘Moment tensor event identification for collapses’ [Data set]. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7435275 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Work from M.E.P. was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344 and document number LLNL-JRNL-2002366. R.W. is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 42374068), the Shenzhen Fundamental Research Program (202208142135190001) and the Leading Talents Program of Guangdong Province (Grant Number 2021QN02G113). The authors thank Q. Kong for his assistance in figure preparation and L. Xin for the assistance with formatting and manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Atmospheric, Earth and Energy Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA, USA

    Michael E. Pasyanos

  2. Federal Seismological Survey, Nuclear Test Ban, Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Hannover, Germany

    Christoph Pilger

  3. Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), Shenzhen, China

    Ruijia Wang  (王蕊嘉)

Authors
  1. Michael E. Pasyanos
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Pilger
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruijia Wang  (王蕊嘉)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.E.P. organized the review and made a substantial contribution to the discussion of content, writing, figure making and review/editing of manuscript before submission. C.P. contributed to the discussion of content, writing, figure making as well as editing of manuscript before submission and during review. R.W. contributed to the discussion, writing, editing, figure making as well as editing of manuscript before submission and during review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael E. Pasyanos.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks Fransiska Dugick, Steven Gibbons and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Glossary

Coda

Scattered waves that arrive after the direct seismic waves.

Envelopes

Curve that traces the extremes of a signal, normally computed using a Hilbert transform.

Magnitude difference methods

A traditional method of identifying an explosion by comparing magnitude estimates made using two different methods, such as mb:MS or the ratio of body-wave magnitude to surface-wave magnitude.

P:S ratios

Ratio of compressional wave amplitudes to shear wave amplitudes.

P-wave

Compressional wave in the solid earth.

Rg

Short-period fundamental mode Rayleigh wave.

S-wave

Shear wave in the solid earth.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pasyanos, M.E., Pilger, C. & Wang, R. Advances in geophysical forensic event monitoring. Nat Rev Earth Environ 6, 521–534 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00702-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00702-w

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing