ArticleScience advances2024
Seismically detected cratering on Mars: Enhanced recent impact flux?
Article in Science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Active crustal straining and fault reactivation at Valles Marineris.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Increased small impactor flux on the Moon as inferred from regolith thickness at the Chang'E-5 Region.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Extensive Secondary Cratering From the InSight Sol 1034a Impact Event.Journal of geophysical research. Planets · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seismic observations of impacts on Mars indicate a higher impact flux than previously measured. Using six confirmed seismic impact detections near the NASA InSight lander and two distant large impacts, we calculate appropriate scalings to compare these rates with lunar-based chronology models. We also update the impact rate from orbital observations using the most recent catalog of new craters on Mars. The snapshot of the current impact rate at Mars recorded seismically is higher than that found using orbital detections alone. The measured rates differ between a factor of 2 and 10, depending on the diameter, although the sample size of seismically detected impacts is small. The close timing of the two largest new impacts found on Mars in the past few decades indicates either a heightened impact rate or a low-probability temporal coincidence, perhaps representing recent fragmentation of a parent body. We conclude that seismic methods of detecting current impacts offer a more complete dataset than orbital imaging.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.