Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. XX, No. XX, pp. –, – 2019, doi: 10.1785/0120190014Ⓔ

Short Note
Is Japanese Folklore Concerning Deep-Sea FishAppearance a Real Precursor of Earthquakes?
by Yoshiaki Orihara, Masashi Kamogawa, Yoichi Noda, and Toshiyasu Nagao

Abstract

In Japan, folklore says that uncommon appearances of deep-sea fish are
an earthquake precursor. If this folklore is proved to be true, the appearance of deepsea fish could be useful information for disaster mitigation. However, a statistical survey has not been conducted on this subject because a database of such information had
yet to be compiled. In Japanese domestic local newspapers, such appearances haveoften been reported because rare appearances might attract readers. The authors constructed a database of reports from newspapers, academic articles, and the marine
museum. In this study, fish species generally implicated in earthquakes, such as oarfish and slender ribbonfish, were the focus. Although the catalog used might notinclude all of the events of deep-sea fish appearances around Japan because of a lackof whole coverage observation, the earthquake occurrence rate after deep-sea fish
appearances can be evaluated. Thus, the usefulness of the deep-sea fish appearance
information for disaster mitigation was evaluated. From this investigation, the spatiotemporal relationship between deep-sea fish appearances and earthquakes was hardly
found. Hence, this Japanese folklore is deemed to be a superstition attributed to theillusory correlation between the two events.

Supplemental Content: Information on deep-sea fish appearances around Japan
from 26 November 1928 to 11 March 2011.

Introduction
In Northern Europe, the ancient Norwegians believedthat if someone injured an oarfish, a deep-sea fish known
as the King of Herrings, then herring fishing would resultin a poor catch. In addition, the Native Americans of the
Pacific Northwest believed a similar taboo for ribbonfishes(Herald, 1961). In Japan, folklore surrounds the appearanceof deep-sea fish. For example, deep-sea fish washing ashore,
being caught in fishing nets as bycatch, and being sighted
near the sea surface all denote a possible earthquake precursor. Kikuoka (1743) reported that a large earthquake
occurred 30 days after the appearance of deep-sea fish.
Suehiro (1968) associated three earthquake occurrences withthree appearances of deep-sea fish: (1) a magnitude (M) 4.7
earthquake that occurred near Niijima Island in 1963, withoarfish caught nearby two days before the earthquake; (2) an
M 7.8 earthquake off the coast of Tokachi in 1963 thatcoincided with a giant squid caught near the Miura Coast, anAtlantic snipe eel caught off the coast of Kushiro, and a longsnouted lancetfish near the Kozu Coast, two days, three days,
and eight days before the earthquake, respectively; and (3) an
M 6.6 earthquake in Uwajima Bay in 1968 that was precededby oarfish being caught near the epicenter three months andone month before the earthquake. Folklore regarding deepsea fish appearances denoting earthquake precursors may
have been believed because of such correlations. However,Honma (1990) claimed that oarfish and slender ribbonfish
appearances before the 1964 M 7.5 Niigata and the 1983
M 7.7 Sea of Japan earthquakes were of no association
because they were not spatiotemporally correlated. The threeappearances mentioned by Suehiro (1968) are doubtful forthe following reasons. First, the M 4.7 earthquake was too
small of a magnitude to discuss the association because
M 4.7 and higher earthquakes frequently occur in Japan
without similar reports of deep-sea fish appearances. Second,
both the Miura and Kozu Coasts were located ∼500 km
south from the epicenter of the M 7.8 earthquake, which is
too large of a distance to consider an association. Third, athree-month lead time to an earthquake is too great for an
association.
However, there are still a number of websites operated
by amateur researchers claiming that deep-sea fish appearances are an earthquake precursor. Like Suehiro (1968), the

BSSA Early Edition / 1

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120190014/4753567/bssa-2019014.1.pdf
by Tokai University user

2

Short Noteauthors of these websites tend to discuss associations
between deep-sea fish appearances and earthquakes without
statistically considering the earthquake magnitude, distancefrom the epicenter, and lead time. In addition, some of themclaim that deep-sea fish are aware of certain earthquake precursor signals near the seabed. Although this is merely ahypothesis, it is a plausible explanation. Hence, they may
have a firm belief that the appearance of deep-sea fish
denotes an earthquake precursor. Deep-sea fish appearances
preceding an imminent earthquake are an unusual animal
behavior, making them a macroscopic anomaly. Woith et al.
(2018) reviewed 180 articles concerning unusual animal
behaviors before earthquakes and claimed that many of themhad weak or even defective arguments, such as the timeseries was too short, normal behavior that was not defined,
and the definition of the anomalous behavior was not quantitative or strict enough. The review suggested that the studyof macroscopic anomalies was problematic not only in amateur research but also in academic articles.
Other researchers suggested that unusual animal behaviors preceding earthquakes are not an earthquake precursor atall. Grant and Conlan (2013) claimed that swarms of frogs
before earthquakes, which were also reported in the 2008
Sichuan earthquake (moment magnitude: Mw 7.9), were notunusual behavior and that such information could cause false
alerts in seismic hazard locations. In other words, it could beargued that if an unusual animal behavior is a true alert, theinformation could be useful for disaster mitigation. Orihara
and Noda (2015) suggested that a mass stranding of Melonheaded whales (Peponocephala electra) seven days before
the 2011 Tohoku earthquake (M w 9.0) was not an earthquake
precursor.
So far, it has been difficult to discuss deep-sea fish having the ability to detect earthquake precursor signals partly
because there have not been enough events reported for statistical purposes. However, there have been reports of deepsea fish appearances cataloged regardless of the earthquake
association. Nishimura (1962) reported the number of slender ribbonfish that appeared around Japan between 1958 and1961. Honma et al. (2011) reported the number of orderlampriformes, including slender ribbonfish, around Niigata
Prefecture in the 1970s. There have also been other academic
reports (Kashiyama et al., 2004; Kadowaki et al., 2010;
Sakiyama and Senou, 2012) dealing with a limited time
period, area, or species. Because deep-sea fish appearances
are a rare event, articles about their appearances have often
been reported in newspapers, especially local ones. Orihara
et al. (2018) constructed a catalog of deep-sea fish appearances using not only academic articles as references(Nishimura, 1962; Kashiyama et al., 2004; Kadowaki et al.,2010; Honma et al., 2011; Sakiyama and Senou, 2012) but
also newspaper articles archived in libraries and marine
museum reports. Although this catalog might not cover the
total number of deep-sea fish appearances around Japan,
the earthquake occurrence rate (EOR) after deep-sea fish
appearances can now be evaluated. In other words, the EOR

may show the utility value of deep-sea fish appearance information as an earthquake alert. In this article, we investigate the relationship between deep-sea fish appearancesand large earthquakes using this catalog and evaluate the usefulness of deep-sea fish appearance information for disastermitigation.

Methods
The period of time covered by the catalog was from 26
November 1928 to 11 March 2011 (Orihara et al., 2018). The
total number of deep-sea fish appearances was 392, and thetotal number of species was 45. The newspapers that referred
to earthquake precursor as local folklore were 8 of 45 species
reported overall, which included oarfish (Regalecus glesne),
slender ribbonfish (Trachipterus ishikawae), Mediterranean
dealfish (Trachipterus trachypterus), ateleopus tanabensis(Ateleopus tanabensis), jellynose fish (Ateleopus japonicus),polka-dot ribbonfish (Desmodema polystictum), scalloped
ribbonfish (Zu cristatus), and unicorn crestfish (Eumecichthys
fiski). In this study, we used data associated with these eightspecies from 336 events (Ⓔ Table S1, available in the supplemental content to this article). The newspapers referred toearthquake precursors based on the folklore, which means
the article might be unbiased because it was issued regardlessof earthquake occurrence.
Wadatsumi (1995) claimed that a magnitude of all 25
past earthquakes with precursor phenomena in Japan was
more than 6.0. Therefore, earthquakes with magnitudes
greater than 6.0 and depths less than 100 km were selectedfrom the Japan Meteorological Agency seismic catalog fromlongitudes 122° to 150° east and from latitude 20° to 47°
north during the same period as the deep-sea fish appearances. Thus, any earthquakes that occurred within a 100 km
radius and within 30 days were excluded as aftershocks.
After this declustering process, 678 earthquakes wereselected.
Figure 1 shows the annual number of deep-sea fish
appearance reports from 1928 to 2011. The number before
1958 was small. This might not be due to the small numberof deep-sea fish appearances but rather the small number ofreports. Hence, the following two periods were analyzed: 26
November 1928 through 11 March 2011 and 1 January 1999
through 11 March 2011. Whereas the former was the whole
period of the data set, the latter was the period defined when
the number of days of deep-sea fish appearances in 1 yr wascontinuously reported with exceeding more than twice. The
number of appearances in the former and the latter were,
therefore, 336 and 184.
Wadatsumi (1995) reported that the unusual animal
behaviors appeared approximately one month before theearthquakes, the most frequent occurrence of unusual fish
behavior was 3 days before the earthquakes, and approximately 50% of the behavior occurred within 60 km from theepicenter of the ocean earthquakes. Wadatsumi (1995) also
reported the most of macroscopic anomalies in the 1923

BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120190014/4753567/bssa-2019014.1.pdf
by Tokai University user

Short Note

3

Y

Figure 1. The annual number of deep-sea fish appearance
reports from 1928 to 2011.
M 7.9 Kanto earthquake occurred within 100 km from theepicenter. Two lead-time (ΔT) days, the interval days
between the days of the deep-sea fish appearance and theearthquake, were defined by 10 and 30 days, termed the alert
period. If the deep-sea appearance and earthquake occurredon the same day, ΔT  0. The target earthquakes for the
analysis were selected when earthquakes occurred within aradius (Δr) of 50 and 100 km from the location where the(a)deep-sea fish appeared (termed the alert area), as estimatedby Orihara et al. (2018). The alert volume was defined as
the alert area during the alert period, the unit of which is
km2 a day (each area was estimated from pixel unit using“ImageJ”). If there was an overlap in both alert areas andalert periods, the alert volume was calculated as the union ofthese alert areas during these alert periods. Two of the magnitude thresholds for the analyses were defined as greaterthan M 6 and M 7. Blue symbols inside the pink regions
shown in Figures 2 and 3 denote the target earthquakes.
Based on these criteria, the number of earthquakes were108 (M ≥ 6) and 13 (M ≥ 7) for Δr  50 km from 1928
to 2011, 221 (M ≥ 6) and 22 (M ≥ 7) for Δr  100 km from
1928 to 2011, 9 (M ≥ 6) and 2 (M ≥ 7) for Δr  50 km
from 1999 to 2011, and 18 (M ≥ 6) and 4 (M ≥ 7) for Δr 
100 km from 1999 to 2011. These results are shown in
Table 1 and Figures 2a,b and 3a,b, respectively. In addition,
Figure 4 shows the monthly number of deep-sea appearance
reports and earthquake occurrences from Figure 2b. The
frequency of earthquake occurrences was similar for eachmonth, but the deep-sea fish appearance reports were small
between July and October.
EOR is defined by the following equation:

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;df1;313;457

EOR 

AN s
≡PEjA;fs
AN s  AN

1

(b)

il h
ur nc
K tre

M 6.8 EQ
(16 July 2007)
Japan SeahhJapan Sea
Japa
n
trenc

Japa
n
trenc

Alert area

il h
ur nc
K tre

M 6.8 EQ
(16 July 2007)

EQs with M ≥ 7 inside the alert area regardless of the alert period

EQs with M ≥ 7 outside the alert area

EQs with M ≥ 6 inside the alert area regardless of the alert period

EQs with M ≥ 6 outside the alert area

Figure 2. (a) Alert areas for the periods of 1928–2011 and Δr  50 km. Pink regions denote all alert areas. Blue diamonds and stars
indicate the earthquakes (EQs) with M ≥ 6 and M ≥ 7, respectively, inside the alert area regardless of the alert period, and gray diamonds andstars show the earthquakes with M ≥ 6 and M ≥ 7, respectively, outside the alert area. (b) The alert areas for the periods of 1928–2011 andΔr  100 km.
BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120190014/4753567/bssa-2019014.1.pdf
by Tokai University user

4

Short Note

(a)

(b)

il h
ur nc
K tre

M 6.8 EQ
(16 July 2007)

il h
ur nc
K tre

M 6.8 EQ
(16 July 2007)
Japan Sea

Japa
n
trenc
h

Japa
n
trenc
h

Japan Sea

Figure 3. (a) Alert areas for the periods of 1999–2011 and Δr  50 km. (b) Alert areas for the periods of 1999–2011 and Δr  100 km.
Symbols are the same as in Figure 2.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. (a) The monthly number of deep-sea fish appearance reports from 1928 to 2011. (b) The monthly number of earthquake
occurrences from Figure 2b from 1928 to 2011.
in which AN s is the total volume of alerts with earthquakef s is the total volume
occurrences, termed success alerts. ANof alerts without earthquake occurrences, termed false alerts.
EOR is equivalent to conditional probability (Aki, 1981) andPEjA. The probability PE is defined by the following
equation:

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;df2;313;232

PE 

EQall ΔT;
T

in which EQall is the total number of earthquake occurrences
within the total alert volume and T is the total time period.
PE corresponds to the spatiotemporal occurrence probability

Table 1
Number of Earthquakes under Each Condition
PeriodΔr

Magnitude (M)Number of earthquakes

26 November 1928–11 March 2011
50 km

≥6:0
108

≥7:0
13

2

100 km

≥6:0
221

≥7:0
22

BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120190014/4753567/bssa-2019014.1.pdf
by Tokai University user

1 January 1999–11 March 2011
50 km

≥6:0
9

≥7:0
2

100 km

≥6:0
18

≥7:0
4

Short Note

5

Table 2
Values of PEjA, PE, and PG: 26 November 1928–11 March 2011
Period26 November 1928–11 March 2011

ΔT

10 daysΔr

Magnitude (M)PEjA
PE
PG

50 km

≥6:0
0.000
0.040
0.000

30 days
100 km

≥7:0
0.000
0.005
0.000

≥6:0
0.000
0.081
0.000

≥7:0
0.000
0.008
0.000

50 km

≥6:0
0.004
0.111
0.036

100 km

≥7:0
0.000
0.013
0.000

≥6:0
0.004
0.228
0.018

≥7:0
0.000
0.023
0.000

Table 3
Values of PEjA, PE, and PG: 1 January 1999–11 March 2011
Period1 January 1999–11 March 2011

ΔT

10 daysΔr

Magnitude (M)PEjA
PE
PG

50 km

≥6:0
0.000
0.022
0.000

30 days
100 km

≥7:0
0.000
0.005
0.000

≥6:0
0.000
0.044
0.000

of earthquakes with a magnitude greater than M 6 or M 7.
Consequently, the probability gain (PG) is described by thefollowing equation (Aki, 1981; McGuire et al., 2005; Zechar
and Jordan, 2008):

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;df3;55;398

PG PEjA
:PE

3

Results and Discussion
PEjA, PE, and PG are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
PEjA ranged from 0.0% to 0.8%, which suggests thatEOR was much less lower than PE. In addition, 0.0% ofPEjA means that no deep-sea fish appearance preceded anearthquake with a magnitude greater than 7.0, and no earthquake event with a magnitude greater than 6.0 occurred
within 10 days after a deep-sea fish appearance. These results
indicate that there were no deep-sea fish appearance reports
before large earthquakes, even just before earthquakes. The
largest value of the PG was only 0.111, which was obtainedin the case of 1999–2011, ΔT  30, Δr  50 km, andM ≥ 6. In this case, 184 deep-sea fish appearances werereported, and 9 earthquakes occurred. Whereas the annual
mean of the earthquake occurrences was 0.7, that of the
deep-sea fish appearance reports was 15.1, that is, themonthly mean of the earthquake occurrences was more than
1.2. Figure 4a indicates that deep-sea appearances have seasonal variability. Although the monthly mean of the deep-sea
fish appearance reports was more than 1.2, the actual reports
were temporally biased. Therefore, it seems that the PG wasonly 0.111. A deep-sea fish appearance was only reported

≥7:0
0.000
0.010
0.000

50 km

≥6:0
0.007
0.063
0.111

≥7:0
0.000
0.014
0.000

100 km

≥6:0
0.008
0.125
0.064

≥7:0
0.000
0.028
0.000

before one earthquake, when slender ribbonfish was caught
in fishing nets as a bycatch off the coast of Yoneyama-cho,city of Kashiwazaki, Niigata Prefecture, on 19 June 2007. An
M 6.8 earthquake occurred on 16 July 2007, 30 km from theappearance site 27 days after the event (see Figs. 2 and 3). In
addition to the low PG, this suggested that there was nocorrelation between the deep-sea fish appearances and theearthquake occurrences.
In Japan, folklore says that the appearance of deep-sea
fish denotes an earthquake precursor. Moreover, catfish havealso been believed to sense impending earthquakes. Hatai
and Abe (1932) and Hatai et al. (1932) claimed that catfish
behavior was associated with earthquakes. There have also
been many articles in which an anomalous change in fish
catches was reported before earthquakes (Terada, 1932a,b,
1933; Tomoda and Hironaga, 1989; Shimamoto, 1996;
Yoshimura, 2004; Orihara et al., 2014). Such fish behavior
is categorized as unusual animal behavior and a macroscopic
anomaly. Unusual animal behavior has been reported inmany countries around the world (e.g., Tributsch, 1985).
Because Japan is surrounded by the sea, not only land animal
but also marine animal behaviors have been reported as macroscopic anomalies. In addition, a large number of ocean
earthquakes occur in this area. Suehiro (1934) presumed thatsome activities must occur on the seabed before the rupture,and fish, especially deep-sea fish, could feel those precursor
activities. Therefore, in Japan, deep-sea fish appearances
have been believed to be an earthquake precursor, although
there was only one case of the appearance of deep-sea fish asa candidate for earthquake precursor.
According to Hill (1965), the following nine criteria
were used for identifying a causal relationship originating

BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120190014/4753567/bssa-2019014.1.pdf
by Tokai University user

6

Short Notefrom epidemiology, known as Hill’s criteria: (1) strength,(2) consistency, (3) specificity, (4) temporality, (5) biologicalgradient, (6) plausibility, (7) coherence, (8) experiment, and(9) analogy. It is not necessary to satisfy all nine of the criteria. In the context of Hill’s criteria, the causal relationshipin this study is discussed as follows: (1) Strength: our results
showed low EOR and PG, which indicates that the strengthof this relationship is weak. (2) Consistency: other similar
investigations have barely been investigated. In a rare case,Grant and Conlan (2013) suggested that frog swarms before
earthquakes were not unusual behavior. Orihara and Noda
(2015) investigated the level of correlation between cetacean
stranding at the Kashima-nada beach and earthquakes around
Japan and concluded that the strandings were not correlatedwith earthquake occurrences. (3) Specificity and (4) temporality: these criteria were not of concern in this study.
(5) Biological gradient: the biological gradient means thatthe greater the cause (amount, period, and strength), thegreater the degree of the result. In this study, the appearanceof about 10 slender ribbonfish was the largest number andwas reported on 11 June 2004, and no corresponding M ≥ 6earthquakes occurred (Ⓔ Table S1). Similarly, 30 deep-sea
fish appearances were reported in January and February of
2010, and no corresponding M ≥ 6 earthquakes occurred. In
addition, there were no corresponding deep-sea fish appearances before any M ≥ 7 earthquakes. Hence, the criterion is
not satisfied. (6) Plausibility: Honma et al. (2011) suggested
that the increase in deep-sea fish appearances around theJapan Sea area between December of 2009 and Februaryof 2011 was caused by the oceanic current and the change
in seawater temperature. This is more plausible than apreseismic origin. (7) Coherence: for the same reasons as
the consistency criterion, this criterion is not satisfied.
(8) Experiment: Ikeya (2004) claimed that the unusual fish
behavior was caused by the anomalous geoelectric telluric
current. However, there have been no reports of obvious preseismic phenomena that an unusual fish behavior and ananomalous geoelectric telluric current were observed simultaneously before an earthquake. Therefore, the criterion is
also hardly satisfied. (9) Analogy: for the same reasons as theconsistency and coherence criteria, this criterion is hardly
satisfied.
In this study, the number of earthquakes from 1999 to
2011, that is, 9 and 18, referring to more than M 6 and M 7
earthquakes, might not be sufficient to evaluate the correlation. If a threshold of earthquake magnitude, a lead time ΔT,
or a detectable area od lower, longer, or wider, respectively,
the number of earthquakes after deep-sea fish appearances
would increase. In some cases, the PG might be sufficiently
high. However, such a correlation between deep-sea fish
appearances and earthquakes in this context would be a confirmation bias because the relationship does not satisfy Hill’scriterion for biological gradient.
The deep-sea fish appearances catalog used in thepresent study is certainly not perfect. However, it can at least
be claimed that the information on deep-sea fish appearances

is not useful for disaster mitigation. In addition, the association between the reported deep-sea fish appearances and theearthquakes is a typical illusory correlation, which is a belief
that a relationship exists between two phenomena that are
actually not related. As shown in Figures 2 and 3, spatial
correlation was hardly found. Moreover, annual temporalcorrelation was hardly found (Fig. 4). This implies that thedominant reason for deep-sea fish appearances might not be
earthquakes. In future studies of the association between
deep-sea fish appearances and earthquakes, reports that do
not originate from earthquakes should be eliminated.

Conclusions
In Japan, deep-sea fish appearances such as oarfish andslender ribbonfish have been believed to be earthquake precursors. We investigated the relationship between deep-sea
fish appearances and earthquakes using the following thresholds: target periods (26 November 1928 to 11 March 2011
and 1 January 1999 to 11 March 2011), lead times (ΔT 
10 days and ΔT  30 days), alert areas (Δr  50 km andΔr  100 km), and magnitudes (M ≥ 6:0 and M ≥ 7:0).
Even comparing 336 deep-sea fish appearances with 221
earthquakes, only one event showed a plausible correlation.
As a result, one can hardly confirm the association between
the two phenomena. Although the catalog might not cover all
events, it can be concluded that a deep-sea fish appearance is
not useful for disaster mitigation. In addition, the Japanesefolklore of a deep-sea fish appearance before a large earthquake is a typical illusory correlation. Because the dominantreason for the deep-sea fish appearances might not be theearthquakes, reports that do not originate from earthquakes
should be eliminated for future investigations of the association between deep-sea fish appearances and earthquakes.

Data and Resources
Figures 2a,b and 3a,b were constructed by pixel unit
using https://imagej.net (last accessed January 2019). The
latitude and longitude in Ⓔ Table S1 (available in the supplemental content to this article) were calculated using
http://www.wellhat.co.jp/tools/googlemap.html (last accessed
January 2019).

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Editor-in-Chief Thomas Pratt and three anonymous
reviewers for their useful comments and the Japan Meteorological Agency(JMA) for the earthquake catalog. This study was partially supported by the
Earthquake Research Institute, the University of Tokyo Joint Usage/
Research Program, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT) of Japan, under its Observation and Research Programfor Prediction of Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions, the Nara MachineryCo., Ltd., Scientific research fund for earthquake prediction, and Institute of
Oceanic Research and Development, Tokai University Project Research.

BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120190014/4753567/bssa-2019014.1.pdf
by Tokai University user

Short Note

7

References
Aki, K. (1981). A probabilistic synthesis of precursory phenomena, in
Earthquake Prediction: An International Review, D. W. Simpson
and P. G. Richards (Editors), Maurice Ewing Ser., Vol. 4, AGU,
Washington, D.C., 566–574.
Grant, R. A., and H. Conlan (2013). Frog swarms: Earthquake precursors or
false alarms? Animals 3, 962–977, doi: 10.3390/ani3040962.
Hatai, S., and N. Abe (1932). The responses of the catfish, Parasilurus
Asotus, to earthquakes, Proc. Imp. Acad. 8, 375–378.
Hatai, S., S. Kokubo, and N. Abe (1932). The earth currents in relation to the
responses of catfish, Proc. Imp. Acad. 8, 478–481.
Herald, E. S. (1961). Living Fishes of the World, Hamish Hamilton Ltd.,
London, United Kingdom, 156 pp.
Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease association or causation,
Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 58, no. 5, 295–300.
Honma, Y. (1990). Revised records of large marine animals stranded on the
coast of Niigata and Sado Island in the Sea of Japan, Spec. Publ. Sado
Mar. Biol. Stn. 5, 1–39 (in Japanese).
Honma, Y., K. Minowa, Y. Nakamura, A. Aoyagi, and T. Nomura (2011).
A revision of the stranding and netting records of Lampridiformes(Taeniosomatous fishes) in and off the Coast of Niigata (theProvince of Echigo) and Sado Island, Sea of Japan, Bull. Hoshizaki
Green Found. 14, 31–41 (in Japanese).
Ikeya, M. (2004). Earthquakes and Animals: From Folk Legends to Science,
World Scientific, Singapore, 86–90.
Kadowaki, S., N. Osada, and A. Kawakubo (2010). Swim method of
slenderoarfish, Trans. Nagasaki Biol. Soc. 67, 36–38 (in Japanese).
Kashiyama, Y., H. Tanase, and S. Kubota (2004). Records of living
Trachipteridae from coastal waters of Wakayama Prefecture, Japan,
J. Japan Driftol. Soc. 2, 31–32 (in Japanese).
Kikuoka, S. (1743). Shokoku rijindan, Vol. 5, Nihombashi-Tori (toto):
Suharaya-Heizaemon Press, Edo (Tokyo), Japan (in Japanese).
McGuire, J. J., M. S. Boettcher, and T. H. Jordan (2005). Foreshock
sequences and short-term earthquake predictability on East Pacific
Rise transform faults, Nature 434, no. 7032, 457–461.
Nishimura, S. (1962). Recent increase in the occurrence of the deal-fish in
adjacent water to Japan, Bull. Japan Sea Reg. Fish. Res. Lab. 10, 51–58.
Orihara, Y., and Y. Noda (2015). Mass stranding before the 2011 Tohoku
Earthquake, Japan—Correlation between strandings of cetaceans at
the Kashima-Nada beach and earthquakes around Japan, Bull. Inst.
Ocean. Res. Dev. 36, 39–46 (in Japanese).
Orihara, Y., M. Kamogawa, and Y. Noda (2014). Investigation of anomalous
fish catch before the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake—Comparison with the case of the 1986 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake andthe 1933 Sanriku earthquake, Zisin 2 67, 81–85 (in Japanese).
Orihara, Y., Y. Noda, and M. Kamogawa (2018). Reports on deep-sea fish
appearances around Japan during 1928–2011, Bull. Inst. Ocean. Res.
Dev. 39, 37–78 (in Japanese).
Sakiyama, T., and H. Senou (2012). Regalecus russelii (Lampriformes:
Regalecidae) from Sagami Bay, Natural History Report of Kanagawa,Vol. 33, 95–101 (in Japanese).
Shimamoto, N. (1996). An uncommon mitigation of red sea bream causedby the earthquake in southern Hyogo Prefecture, Hyogo Suishi Kenpo
33, 5–11 (in Japanese).

Suehiro, Y. (1934). Some observations on the unusual behavior of fishes
prior to an earthquake, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. (suppl. 1), 228–231.
Suehiro, Y. (1968). Unusual behavior of fishes to earthquake, Scientific
Report of the Keikyu Aburatsubo Marine Park Aquarium, Vol. 1,
4–11 (in Japanese).
Terada, T. (1932a). On some probable influence of earthquakes upon
fisheries, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. 10, 393–401.
Terada, T. (1932b). Earthquakes and fisheries, Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan 8,
83–86.
Terada, T. (1933). Earthquakes and fisheries 2, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. 11,
714–716.
Tomoda, Y., and H. Hironaga (1989). The effect of geophysical phenomena
on long-term variation of the catch of pelagic fish, Proc. Intel. Symp.
on the Long Term Variability of Pelagic Fish Population and Their
Environment: International Symposium, Sendai, Japan, 14–17
November 1989, 359–366.
Tributsch, H. (1985). Animals Would Predict Earthquakes (Translated
Version of Wenn die schlangen erwachen in German, 1978, by T.
Watanabe), Asahisensyo, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Wadatsumi, K. (Editor) (1995). 1519 Statements on Precursors, Tokyo Pub.,
Tokyo, Japan, 265 pp. (in Japanese).
Woith, H., G. M. Petersen, S. Hainzl, and T. Dahm (2018). Review: Can
animals predict earthquakes? Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 108, no. 3A,
1031–1045, doi: 10.1785/0120170313.
Yoshimura, A. (2004). Sanriku Offshore Great Tsunami, Bungeishunju,
Tokyo, Japan, 191 pp. (in Japanese).
Zechar, J. D., and T. H. Jordan (2008). Testing alarm-based earthquake
predictions, Geophys. J. Int. 172, 715–724.

Yoshiaki Orihara
Yoichi Noda
Toshiyasu Nagao
Division of Earthquake Prediction, Volcano and Tsunami ResearchInstitute of Oceanic Research and Development
Tokai University
Shizuoka 424-0902, Japanorihara@tsc.u‑tokai.ac.jp
orihara@u‑gakugei.ac.jp
noda@sems‑tokaiuniv.jp
nagao@scc.u‑tokai.ac.jp
Masashi Kamogawa
Division of Earthquake Prediction Research
Global Center for Asian and Regional Research
University of Shizuoka
Shizuoka 420-0839, Japan
kamogawa@u‑shizuoka‑ken.ac.jp
kamogawa@u‑gakugei.ac.jp

BSSA Early Edition

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0120190014/4753567/bssa-2019014.1.pdf
by Tokai University user

Manuscript received 29 January 2019;
Published Online 18 June 2019