SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Developments in Volcanology”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

151 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

USGS2021

Volcanic seismicity beneath Chuginadak Island, Alaska (Cleveland and Tana volcanoes): Implications for magma dynamics and eruption forecasting

Cleveland and Tana are remote volcanoes located in the central Aleutian volcanic arc on the eastern end of the Islands of Four Mountains (IFM). The persistently active Mount Cleveland volcano, on the western side of Chuginadak Island, is surrounded by several closely spaced Quaternary volcanic centers including Carlisle, Herbert, Kagamil, Tana, and Uliaga, and numerous small satellite vents on Chiginadak between Cleveland and Tana. The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) installed two permanent broadband seismometers on Chuginadak Island in 2014, and we operated a temporary broadband network focused on the western side of the island in 2015–2016. Collectively, these stations provided the first seismic observations of this frequently active volcano and the surrounding Holocene-aged volcanic vents. During the study period (July 2014–January 2019), eruptive activity at Cleveland was characterized by small explosions separated by periods of lava effusion that formed small domes in the volcano's summit crater. We characterize seismicity beneath Chuginadak Island through automated analysis of event waveform frequency content, development of a one-dimensional P-wave velocity model, calculation of earthquake hypocenters, magnitudes, focal mechanisms, and identification of earthquake families. This analysis reveals the full range of seismic event types expected in a highly active volcanic environment and includes Volcano-Tectonic (VT) earthquakes, Long-Period (LP) events, and explosion signals. LP events appear to cluster at shallow depth beneath the active crater of Mount Cleveland and almost all of the explosions occur without identifiable short-term (hours to days) seismic precursors. VT earthquakes beneath Mount Cleveland occur at depths of 2 to 8 km below sea level (BSL) and range in magnitude from −0.2 to 1.8. VT focal mechanisms have horizontal P-axes that align with the regional axis of maximum stress. These observations, and a relatively slow one-dimensional seismic velocity model, are consistent with a shallow body of magma that is fed through a deeper conduit system. The time-history of VT earthquakes and shallow LP events suggest their occurrence may track the transfer of magma and fluids from the mid-crust to the shallow portions of the conduit system and may provide a means to anticipate future explosions and periods of dome growth. VT hypocenters also extend ~7 km northeast of Cleveland's summit at depths of 5 to 10 km BSL, under a group of Holocene-aged vents between Mount Cleveland and Tana. These earthquakes have vertically-oriented P-axes and a greater percentage occur in families. These observations, combined with observations of vent orientation and morphology and gas flux, suggest the area between Cleveland and Tana represents a zone of complicated volcano-tectonic interaction, similar to calderas elsewhere in the Aleutian arc. The presence of a larger volcanic system in the eastern IFM could influence magmatism and account for the multiple closely spaced volcanic centers in this region.

Alaska↗

USGS2024

Special topic—Unoccupied aircraft systems

Introduction Unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) increasingly support volcano monitoring and eruption response activities in the United States and abroad (James and others, 2020). Advances in UAS platforms and miniaturization of sensors over the past decade have expanded the use of this technology for a wide range of applications within volcanology (Jordan, 2019; James and others, 2020). UAS can greatly enhance existing ground-, aerial-, and satellite-based observation and in situ monitoring networks at volcanoes by providing new avenues for data collection in terms of access, resolution, and timing. UAS can collect data in difficult and hazardous environments, reducing risk to occupied aircraft and (or) ground crews; support the generation of dense time series of data through frequent, low-cost, high-resolution surveys; and provide real-time, on-demand measurements at volcanic systems for indicators such as gas, thermal output, and topographic change without the need to wait for contracted aerial flight services or satellite orbit intervals. During the 2018 response to the Kīlauea eruption on the Island of Hawaiʻi, UAS were used extensively and successfully to monitor, track, investigate, and (or) warn of ongoing volcanic activity (fig. L1; Neal and others, 2019). Throughout the eruption, the UAS team was able to provide data products rapidly to emergency managers for situational awareness and to scientists for quantitative hazard assessment (Diefenbach and others, 2018). Over the course of 4 months, more than 1,200 UAS missions were flown and yielded critical data that included (1) live video to emergency operations centers in Hilo and Honolulu for situational awareness; (2) gas emission rates, compositions, and concentrations; (3) repeat nadir videos over sections of the lava channel to support measurements of lava effusion rate; (4) oblique videos for hazards assessment and outreach; and (5) photogrammetry surveys to create very high-resolution topographic models and orthophoto mosaics (Diefenbach and others, 2018). In coming years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) plans to expand its fleet of UAS, associated sensors, and remote pilots to enhance volcano monitoring and response capabilities. Currently (2023), USGS operational capabilities are restricted to small class UAS (sUAS; less than [<] 55 pounds) that are limited in range, payload capacity, and flight duration. Additionally, USGS-piloted platforms are restricted to the U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Aviation Services approved fleet, which includes a limited number of small and medium multi-rotor aircraft and vertical take-off and landing fixed-wing aircraft ( https://www.doi.gov/aviation/uas/fleet ). Each type of platform has advantages and disadvantages. Small rotor-wing quadcopters are fast to deploy, can be carried in a backpack, and are highly maneuverable, but are typically only equipped with a small camera and have a minimal flight range. Medium rotor-wing hexacopters can carry larger payloads (< 20 kilograms [kg]) and varied sensors, but, with the drawback of minimal flight time (<30 minutes), they typically have similar range capabilities to their smaller counterparts and are not as easily deployable. Fixed-wing platforms provide relatively long endurance (<60 minutes) and range and, with the vertical take-off and landing capabilities, can launch and land in relatively small spaces; however, they have less maneuverability and hovering capability than the rotor-wing platforms. Although the 2018 Kīlauea response showed the benefit of the current UAS fleet, all platforms have limited range [<10 kilometers (km)], such that operators must be stationed relatively close to the region of interest. To expand UAS monitoring capabilities, VHP staff have been working closely with industry partners and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop a next-generation UAS for volcano monitoring (Kern and others, 2020). This ruggedized, mid-range (>20 km), multiparametric (gas and photogrammetry) UAS has been developed to meet volcano monitoring needs, particularly at less accessible, more dangerous stratovolcanoes. It is expected in the coming years that additional UAS platforms with new and smaller sensors will expand our capabilities to meet the Nation’s volcano monitoring objectives.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2013

Evaluation of Redoubt Volcano's sulfur dioxide emissions by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument

The 2009 eruption of Redoubt Volcano, Alaska, provided a rare opportunity to compare satellite measurements of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) with airborne SO 2 measurements by the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO). Herein we: (1) compare OMI and airborne SO 2 column density values for Redoubt's tropospheric plume, (2) calculate daily SO 2 masses from Mount Redoubt for the first three months of the eruption, (3) develop simple methods to convert daily measured SO 2 masses into emission rates to allow satellite data to be directly integrated with the airborne SO 2 emissions dataset, (4) calculate cumulative SO 2 emissions from the eruption, and (5) evaluate OMI as a monitoring tool for high-latitude degassing volcanoes. A linear correlation (R 2 ~ 0.75) is observed between OMI and airborne SO 2 column densities. OMI daily SO 2 masses for the sample period ranged from ~ 60.1 kt on 24 March to below detection limit, with an average daily SO 2 mass of ~ 6.7 kt. The highest SO 2 emissions were observed during the initial part of the explosive phase and the emissions exhibited an overall decreasing trend with time. OMI SO 2 emission rates were derived using three methods and compared to airborne measurements. This comparison yields a linear correlation (R 2 ~ 0.82) with OMI-derived emission rates consistently lower than airborne measurements. The comparison results suggest that OMI's detection limit for high latitude, springtime conditions varies from ~ 2000 to 4000 t/d. Cumulative SO 2 masses calculated from daily OMI data for the sample period are estimated to range from 542 to 615 kt, with approximately half of this SO 2 produced during the explosive phase of the eruption. These cumulative masses are similar in magnitude to those estimated for the 1989–90 Redoubt eruption. Strong correlations between daily OMI SO 2 mass and both tephra mass and acoustic energy during the explosive phase of the eruption suggest that OMI data may be used to infer relative eruption size and explosivity. Further, when used in conjunction with complementary datasets, OMI daily SO 2 masses may be used to help distinguish explosive from effusive activity and identify changes in lava extrusion rates. The results of this study suggest that OMI is a useful volcano monitoring tool to complement airborne measurements, capture explosive SO 2 emissions, and provide high temporal resolution SO 2 emissions data that can be used with interdisciplinary datasets to illuminate volcanic processes.

Alaska↗

USGS2017

Plateaus and sinuous ridges as the fingerprints of lava flow inflation in the Eastern Tharsis Plains of Mars

The Tharsis Montes rift aprons are composed of outpourings of lava from chaotic terrains to the northeast and southwest flank of each volcano. Sinuous and branching channel networks that are present on the rift aprons suggest the possibility of fluvial processes in their development, or erosion by rapidly emplaced lavas, but the style of lava flow emplacement throughout rift apron development is not clearly understood. To better characterize the style of lava emplacement and role of fluvial processes in rift apron development, we conducted morphological mapping of the Pavonis Mons southwest rift apron and the eastern Tharsis plains using images from the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE), Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC), Context Camera (CTX), Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS), and High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) along with the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) Precision Experiment Data Records (PEDRs) and gridded data. Our approach was to: (1) search for depositional fans at the slope break between the rift apron and adjacent low slope plains; (2) determine if there is evidence that previously formed deposits might have been buried by plains units; (3) characterize the Tharsis plains morphologies east of Pavonis Mons; and (4) assess their relationship to the rift apron units. We have not identified topographically significant depositional fans, nor did we observe evidence to suggest that plains units have buried older rift apron units. Flow features associated with the rift apron are observed to continue across the slope break onto the plains. In this area, the plains are composed of a variety of small fissures and low shield vents around which broad channel-fed and tube-fed flows have been identified. We also find broad, flat-topped plateaus and sinuous ridges mixed among the channels, tubes and vents. Flat-topped plateaus and sinuous ridges are morphologies that are analogous to those observed on the coastal plain of Hawai‘i, where lava flows have advanced from the volcano's several degree flank onto the nearly zero degree coastal plain. When local volumetric flow rates are low, flow fronts tend to spread laterally and often thicken via endogenous growth, or inflation, of the sheet-like flow units. If flow advance is restricted by existing topography into narrow pathways, inflation can be focused into sinuous, elongate ridges. The presence of plateaus and ridges—emplaced from the rift zones, across the plains to the east of Pavonis Mons—and a lack of fan-like features, or evidence for their burial, are consistent with rift apron lavas crossing a slope break with low local volumetric flow rates that led to inflation of sheet-like and tube-fed lava flows.

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research↗

USGS2009

Is the track of the Yellowstone hotspot driven by a deep mantle plume? - Review of volcanism, faulting, and uplift in light of new data

Geophysical imaging of a tilted mantle plume extending at least 500 km beneath the Yellowstone caldera provides compelling support for a plume origin of the entire Yellowstone hotspot track back to its inception at 17 Ma with eruptions of flood basalts and rhyolite. The widespread volcanism, combined with a large volume of buoyant asthenosphere, supports a plume head as an initial phase. Estimates of the diameter of the plume head suggest it completely spanned the upper mantle and was fed from sources beneath the transition zone, We consider a mantle–plume depth to at least 1,000 km to best explain the large scale of features associated with the hotspot track. The Columbia River–Steens flood basalts form a northward-migrating succession consistent with the outward spreading of a plume head beneath the lithosphere. The northern part of the inferred plume head spread (pancaked) upward beneath Mesozoic oceanic crust to produce flood basalts, whereas basalt melt from the southern part intercepted and melted Paleozoic and older crust to produce rhyolite from 17 to 14 Ma. The plume head overlapped the craton margin as defined by strontium isotopes; westward motion of the North American plate has likely “scraped off” the head from the plume tail. Flood basalt chemistries are explained by delamination of the lithosphere where the plume head intersected this cratonic margin. Before reaching the lithosphere, the rising plume head apparently intercepted the east-dipping Juan de Fuca slab and was deflected ~ 250 km to the west; the plume head eventually broke through the slab, leaving an abruptly truncated slab. Westward deflection of the plume head can explain the anomalously rapid hotspot movement of 62 km/m.y. from 17 to 10 Ma, compared to the rate of ~ 25 km/m.y. from 10 to 2 Ma. A plume head-to-tail transition occurred in the 14-to-10-Ma interval in the central Snake River Plain and was characterized by frequent (every 200–300 ka for about 2 m.y. from 12.7 to 10.5 Ma) “large volume (> 7000 km 3 )”, and high temperature rhyolitic eruptions (> 1000 °C) along a ~ 200–km-wide east–west band. The broad transition area required a heat source of comparable area. Differing characteristics of the volcanic fields here may in part be due to variations in crustal composition but also may reflect development in differing parts of an evolving plume where the older fields may reflect the eruption from several volcanic centers located above very large and extensive rhyolitic magma chamber(s) over the detached plume head while the younger fields may signal the arrival of the plume tail intercepting and melting the lithosphere and generating a more focused rhyolitic magma chamber. The three youngest volcanic fields of the hotspot track started with large ignimbrite eruptions at 10.21, 6.62, and 2.05 Ma. They indicate hotspot migration N55° E at ~ 25 km/m.y. compatible in direction and velocity with the North American Plate motion. The Yellowstone Crescent of High Terrain (YCHT) flares outward ahead of the volcanic progression in a pattern similar to a bow-wave, and thus favors a sub-lithospheric driver. Estimates of YCHT-uplift rates are between 0.1 and 0.4 mm/yr. Drainage divides have migrated northeastward with the hotspot. The Continental Divide and a radial drainage pattern now centers on the hotspot. The largest geoid anomaly in the conterminous U.S. is also centered on Yellowstone and, consistent with uplift above a mantle plume. Bands of late Cenozoic faulting extend south and west from Yellowstone. These bands are subdivided into belts based both on recency of offset and range-front height. Fault history within these belts suggests the following pattern: Belt I — starting activity but little accumulated offset; Belt II — peak activity with high total offset and activity younger than 14 ka; Belt III — waning activity with large offset and activity younger than 140 ka; and Belt IV — apparently dead on substantial range fronts (south side of the eastern Snake River Plain only). These belts of fault activity have migrated northeast in tandem with the adjacent hotspot volcanism. On the southern arm of the YCHT, fault activity occurs on the inner, western slope consistent with driving by gravitational potential energy, whereas faulting has not started on the eastern, outer, more compressional slope. Range fronts increase in height and steepness northeastward along the southern-fault band. Both the belts of faulting and the YCHT are asymmetrical across the volcanic hotspot track, flaring out 1.6 times more on the south than the north side. This and the southeast tilt of the Yellowstone plume may reflect southeast flow of the upper mantle.

Wyoming↗

USGS2019

Character of community response to volcanic crises at Sinabung and Kelud volcanoes

Volcano disaster mitigation is a priority in Indonesia's national development plan due to the large number of active volcanoes, high frequency of eruptions and dense population within volcanic hazards zones. As a consequence of these factors and the many decades of experience in mitigation of volcanic risk, Indonesia demonstrates that effective community response is critical to avoid disasters. Understanding of hazards, risks and early-warning systems are the main factors in building an effective community response. The level of understanding of these factors is proportional to a community's independence in taking appropriate actions and is reflected in the community's preparedness. Further, the experience gained from responses to the eruptions of Sinabung and Kelud as well as from other Indonesian volcanoes shows that a local leader plays an important role in mobilizing a community. Such a leader utilizes knowledge of local culture (local wisdom) and an understanding of the community's character to encourage community members to participate and empower themselves. Sharing of information and the formulation of a disaster mitigation plan by government and community also results in a shared commitment to increase participation and community empowerment. Indonesia uses four volcano alert levels to activate community mitigation plans. In order of increasing criticality, these are: Normal, Advisory (Waspada), Watch (Siaga) and Warning (Awas). Implementation of policies, strategies and actions are tied to each level. In addition, mandatory actions by certain stakeholders are required at certain alert levels. These mandatory actions increase the effectiveness of disaster mitigation by both government and community. A comparison of the crisis responses of the Sinabung and Kelud communities is carried out here in order to better understand problems, learn lessons and improve the process of Indonesia's community mitigation policies. Local culture, the start time of community involvement (in normal versus crisis time), degree and level of government involvement, roles of local leaders, local perception of hazards, and political intervention are all factors that influence a community's response at the time of eruption. We stress that an understanding of the “ community character ,” which includes a number of cultural, social and knowledge parameters is essential for effective crisis management. The responses of Sinabung and Kelud illustrate both the key role of community in disaster mitigation and the synergy that can result from close coordination and collaboration between government and community.

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research↗

USGS2009

Optical satellite data volcano monitoring: a multi-sensor rapid response system

In this chapter, the use of satellite remote sensing to monitor active geological processes is described. Specifically, threats posed by volcanic eruptions are briefly outlined, and essential monitoring requirements are discussed. As an application example, a collaborative, multi-agency operational volcano monitoring system in the north Pacific is highlighted with a focus on the 2007 eruption of Kliuchevskoi volcano, Russia. The data from this system have been used since 2004 to detect the onset of volcanic activity, support the emergency response to large eruptions, and assess the volcanic products produced following the eruption. The overall utility of such integrative assessments is also summarized. The work described in this chapter was originally funded through two National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth System Science research grants that focused on the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) instrument. A skilled team of volcanologists, geologists, satellite tasking experts, satellite ground system experts, system engineers and software developers collaborated to accomplish the objectives. The first project, Automation of the ASTER Emergency Data Acquisition Protocol for Scientific Analysis, Disaster Monitoring, and Preparedness , established the original collaborative research and monitoring program between the University of Pittsburgh (UP), the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), the NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC) at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, and affiliates on the ASTER Science Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) as well as associates at the Earth Remote Sensing Data Analysis Center (ERSDAC) in Japan. This grant, completed in 2008, also allowed for detailed volcanic analyses and data validation during three separate summer field campaigns to Kamchatka Russia. The second project, Expansion and synergistic use of the ASTER Urgent Request Protocol (URP) for natural disaster monitoring and scientific analysis , has expanded the project to other volcanoes around the world and is in progress through 2011. The focus on ASTER data is due to the suitability of the sensor for natural disaster monitoring and the availability of data. The instrument has several unique facets that make it especially attractive for volcanic observations (Ramsey and Dehn, 2004). Specifically, ASTER routinely collects data at night, it has the ability to generate digital elevation models using stereo imaging, it can collect data in various gain states to minimize data saturation, it has a cross-track pointing capability for faster targeting, and it collects data up to ±85° latitude for better global coverage. As with any optical imaging-based remote sensing, the viewing conditions can negatively impact the data quality. This impact varies across the optical and thermal infrared wavelengths as well as being a function of the specific atmospheric window within a given wavelength region. Water vapor and cloud formation can obscure surface data in the visible and near infrared (VNIR)/shortwave infrared (SWIR) region due mainly to non-selective scattering of the incident photons. In the longer wavelengths of the thermal infrared (TIR), scattering is less of an issue, but heavy cloud cover can still obscure the ground due to atmospheric absorption. Thin clouds can be optically-transparent in the VNIR and TIR regions, but can cause errors in the extracted surface reflectance or derived surface temperatures. In regions prone to heavy cloud cover, optical remote sensing can be improved through increased temporal resolution. As more images are acquired in a given time period the chances of a clear image improve dramatically. The Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) routine monitoring, which commonly collects 4-6 images per day of any north Pacific volcano, takes advantage of this fact. The rapid response program described in this chapter also improves the temporal resolution of the ASTER instrument. ASTER has been acquiring images of volcanic eruptions since soon after its launch in December 1999. An early example included the observations of the large pyroclastic flow deposit emplaced at Bezymianny volcano in Kamchatka, Russia. The first images in March 2000, just weeks after the eruption, revealed the extent, composition, and cooling history of this large deposit and of the active lava dome (Ramsey and Dehn, 2004). The initial results from these early datasets spurred interest in using ASTER data for expanded volcano monitoring in the north Pacific. It also gave rise to the multi-year NASA-funded programs of rapid response scheduling and imaging throughout the Aleutian, Kamchatka and Kurile arcs. Since the formal establishment of the programs, the data have provided detailed descriptions of the eruptions of Augustine, Bezymianny, Kliuchevskoi and Sheveluch volcanoes over the past nine years (Wessels et al., in press; Carter et al., 2007, 2008; Ramsey et al., 2008; Rose and Ramsey, 2009). The initial research focus of this rapid response program was specifically on automating the ASTER sensor’s ability for targeted observational scheduling using the expedited data system. This urgent request protocol is one of the unique characteristics of ASTER. It provides a limited number of emergency observations, typically at a much-improved temporal resolution and quicker turnaround with data processing in the United States rather than in Japan. This can speed the reception of the processed data by several days to a week. The ongoing multi-agency research and operational collaboration has been highly successful. AVO serves as the primary source for status information on volcanic activity, working closely with the National Weather Service (NWS), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), military and other state and federal emergency services. Collaboration with the Russian Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (IVS)/Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Team (KVERT) is also maintained. Once a volcano is identified as having increased thermal output, ASTER is automatically tasked and the volcano is targeted at the next available opportunity. After the data are acquired, scientists at all the agencies have access to the images, with the primary science analysis carried out at the University of Pittsburgh and AVO. Results are disseminated to the responsible monitoring agencies and the global community through e-mail mailing lists.

Book chapter↗