Figure S1. Contour map of observed vertical displacements, as in Table S1 and Fig. 3(B) of the main text.

Figure S2. Observed (red arrows with 68 per cent error ellipses) and modelled (blue arrows) horizontal displacements, including the far-field stations, as obtained from the uniform-slip fault geometry inversion (see Section 4 of the main text).

Figure S3. Histograms of residuals for the east, north and vertical GPS displacements, and normalized residuals of all the three components, with respect to the RMS values of each component, calculated for the uniform-slip model (left) and the distributed slip model (right).

Figure S4. Trade-offs between the model parameters of the uniform-slip dislocation model obtained from the inversion of 10 000 bootstrap resamples of the original data of coseismic displacement (see Fig. 4 in the main text) as described in Section 4 of the main text.

Figure S5. Variable-slip models, and corresponding model resolutions, obtained by using a range of β values (see Section 5).

Figure S6. Trade-off curve between fault-slip model roughness and misfit function for coseismic-slip distribution used to determine the appropriate value of β used to smooth the slip distribution.

Figure S7. Static stress-changes caused by the April 6 2009, L'Aquila mainshock, evaluated from the fault model with uniform-slip derived in section 4 of the main text (see Fig. 3).

Figure S8. Differences in the static stress changes as evaluated starting from the distributed-slip model (see Fig. 8 of the main text) and the uniform-slip model (see Fig. S7).

Figure S9. Cross-sections view of the distribution of static Coulomb stress changes along a profile intersecting the April 7, Mw 5.54 aftershock (see Fig. 5 in the main text for details on the B--B' cross section and the distribution of aftershocks), using a source fault where the variable slip (as derived in Section 5 of the main text) is limited to a depth of 6 km.

Table S1. Observed coseismic displacements for all continuous and survey-mode GPS stations used in this work.

Table S2. Same as Table 2 in the main text, where the slip on the principal fault is assumed to be uniform, according to the results of Section 4.

GJI_5279_sm_Suppmat.pdf36012KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.