The purpose of this paper is to discuss the lithosphere–atmosphere–ionosphere coupling (LAIC) effects with the use of multiparameter precursor observations for two successive Japanese earthquakes (EQs) (with a magnitude of around 7) in February and March 2021, respectively, considering a seemingly significant difference in seismological and geological hypocenter conditions for those EQs. The second March EQ is very similar to the famous 2011 Tohoku EQ in the sense that those EQs took place at the seabed of the subducting plate, while the first February EQ happened within the subducting plate, not at the seabed. Multiparameter observation is a powerful tool for the study of the LAIC process, and we studied the following observables over a 3-month period (January to March): (i) ULF data (lithospheric radiation and ULF depression phenomenon); (ii) ULF/ELF atmospheric electromagnetic radiation; (iii) atmospheric gravity wave (AGW) activity in the stratosphere, extracted from satellite temperature data; (iv) subionospheric VLF/LF propagation data; and (v) GPS TECs (total electron contents). In contrast to our initial expectation of different responses of anomalies to the two EQs, we found no such conspicuous differences of electromagnetic anomalies between the two EQs, but showed quite similar anomaly responses for the two EQs. It is definite that atmospheric ULF/ELF radiation and ULF depression as lower ionospheric perturbation are most likely signatures of precursors to both EQs, and most importantly, all electromagnetic anomalies are concentrated in the period of about 1 week–9 days before the EQ to the EQ day. There seems to exist a chain of LAIC process (cause-and-effect relationship) for the first EQ, while all of the observed anomalies seem to occur nearly synchronously in time for the send EQ. Even though we tried to discuss possible LAIC channels, we cannot come to any definite conclusion about which coupling channel is plausible for each EQ.

We report precursory seismic patterns prior to the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes, as measured by four different methods based on changes in seismicity that can be used for earthquake forecasting: the b-value method, two methods of seismic quiescence evaluation, and an analysis of seismicity density in space and time. The spatial extent of precursory patterns differs from one method to the other and ranges from local scales (typically, asperity size) to regional scales (e.g., 2° × 3° around the source zone). The earthquakes were preceded by periods of pronounced anomalies, which lasted in yearly scales (1.5 years), or longer (>3 years). We demonstrate that a combination of multiple methods detected different signals prior to the Kumamoto earthquakes. This indicates great potential to reduce the hazard at possible future sites of earthquakes relative to long-term seismic hazard assessment. We also found that the seismic quiescence in a regional-scale area, detected by using the two methods of seismic quiescence evaluation, was a common precursor to the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes and 2015 Off Satsuma Peninsula earthquake. The result allows us to interpret both events as the onset that occurred at a section along the tectonic line from the Okinawa Trough through the Beppu–Shimabara graben.

A highly stressed area where eventual ruptures have often been observed to nucleate is characterized by low b values of earthquake frequency‐size distribution. Crustal deformation due to the occurrence of large earthquakes causes stress perturbation in nearby regions, so an investigation into spatiotemporal b values can play a crucial role in the distribution of postseismic hazards after the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake sequence along the Futagawa‐Hinagu fault zone, which culminated in the magnitude 7.3 mainshock. Together with an analysis of aftershock decay p value that can be used to infer stressing history, a highly stressed area with a characteristic dimension of 10 km at the southern end of the causative faults was found. Our observation is explained by postseismic deformation due to an afterslip on the causative faults and viscoelastic relaxation model. Similar to the Kumamoto mainshock rupture, which started at a low‐b‐value area, the observed highly stressed area shows a high likelihood of future earthquake ruptures.

Multi-parameter observations, powerful for the study of lithosphere–atmosphere–ionosphere coupling (LAIC), have been performed for a recent Tokyo earthquake (EQ) with a moderate magnitude (M = 5.9) and rather larger depth (~70 km) on 7 October 2021, in the hope of predicting the next Kanto (Tokyo) huge EQ, such as the 1923 Great Kanto EQ (with a magnitude greater than 7). Various possible precursors have been searched during the two-month period of 1 September to 31 October 2021, based on different kinds of data sets: (i) ULF (ultra-low frequency) magnetic data from Kakioka, Japan, (ii) ULF/ELF (extremely low frequency) magnetic field data from the Chubu University network, (iii) meteorological data (temperature and humidity) from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), (iv) AGW (atmospheric gravity wave) ERA5 data provided by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF), (v) subionospheric VLF/LF (very low frequency/low frequency) data from Russia and Japan, (vi) ionosonde Japanese data, and (vii) GIM (global ionosphere map) TEC (total electron content) data. After extensive analyses of all of the above data, we have found that there are a few obvious precursors: (i) ULF/ELF electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere, and (ii) lower ionospheric perturbations (with two independent tools from the ULF depression and subionospheric VLF anomaly) which took place just two days before the EQ. Further, ULF/ELF atmospheric electromagnetic radiation has been observed from approximately one week before the EQ until a few days after the EQ, which seems to be approximately synchronous in time to the anomalous variation in meteorological parameters (a combination of temperature and humidity, atmospheric chemical potential). On the other hand, there have been no clear anomalies detected in the stratospheric AGW activity, and in the NmF2 and TEC data for the upper F region ionosphere. So, it seems that the lithospheric origin is not strong enough to perturb the upper F region. Finally, we discuss the possible hypothesis for the LAIC process, and we can conclude that the AGW hypothesis might be ruled out, but other possible channels such as the chemical channel (radon emanation) and the associated effects might be in operation, at least, for this Tokyo EQ.