Dynamics of a powerful deep submarine eruption recorded in H2O contents and speciation in rhyolitic glass: The 2012 Havre eruption

Mitchell, S. J.; McIntosh, I. M.; Houghton, B. F.; Carey, Rebecca J.; Shea, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2018.04.053

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4c). Late-stage bubble expansion supports previous hypotheses that giant pumices cool slowly in the water column Mitchell et al 2018a). In this regard, we note that residence time of giant pumices within a possible thermal plume before settling in cold seawater will be a dominant control on clast cooling rates ).…”

Section: Magma Decompression Rates and Post-fragmentation Bubble Expasupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The lowdensity rind observed in the GP290 CT scan does not appear to be the result of increased vesicularity, a difference in vesicle number density or size distribution, but instead may be the result of more rapid, and a greater extent of, rehydration of the giant pumice exterior. This would support the geochemical evidence for rehydration presented by Mitchell et al (2018a).…”

Section: Strain and Bubble Deformationsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Cooling models, quench depths, and the identification of posteruptive vesicle growth in this study show that GP magma did not quench instantly (cf. Fauria and Manga 2018;Mitchell et al 2018a).…”

Section: Source Of Textural Banding In Gp290mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Giant Pumice In the Water Column: Fragmentation And Ascentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of a large, vapor-rich submarine plume or hot seawater sheath at Havre was speculated to control the cooling rates of giant pumices in the water column by Mitchell et al (2018a). Many clasts from the 2012 Havre eruption were found to have cooled through the glass transition at very shallow depths by Mitchell et al (2018a) and Rotella et al (2013). In addition, modeling by Manga et al (2018a) and Fauria and Manga (2018) demonstrated that rise time to the ocean surface was rapid (< 10 min) for clasts larger than 10-20 cm.…”

Section: Giant Pumice In the Water Column: Fragmentation And Ascentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Submarine giant pumice: a window into the shallow conduit dynamics of a recent silicic eruption

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meter-scale vesicular blocks, termed "giant pumice," are characteristic primary products of many subaqueous silicic eruptions. The size of giant pumices allows us to describe meter-scale variations in textures and geochemistry with implications for shearing processes, ascent dynamics, and thermal histories within submarine conduits prior to eruption. The submarine eruption of Havre volcano, Kermadec Arc, in 2012, produced at least 0.1 km 3 of rhyolitic giant pumice from a single 900-m-deep vent, with blocks up to 10 m in size transported to at least 6 km from source. We sampled and analyzed 29 giant pumices from the 2012 Havre eruption. Geochemical analyses of whole rock and matrix glass show no evidence for geochemical heterogeneities in parental magma; any textural variations can be attributed to crystallization of phenocrysts and microlites, and degassing. Extensive growth of microlites occurred near conduit walls where magma was then mingled with ascending microlite-poor, low viscosity rhyolite. Meter-to micron-scale textural analyses of giant pumices identify diversity throughout an individual block and between the exteriors of individual blocks. We identify evidence for post-disruption vesicle growth during pumice ascent in the water column above the submarine vent. A 2D cumulative strain model with a flared, shallow conduit may explain observed vesicularity contrasts (elongate tube vesicles vs spherical vesicles). Low vesicle number densities in these pumices from this high-intensity silicic eruption demonstrate the effect of hydrostatic pressure above a deep submarine vent in suppressing rapid late-stage bubble nucleation and inhibiting explosive fragmentation in the shallow conduit.

show abstract

Section: Magma Decompression Rates and Post-fragmentation Bubble Expasupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Strain and Bubble Deformationsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Source Of Textural Banding In Gp290mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Giant Pumice In the Water Column: Fragmentation And Ascentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Giant Pumice In the Water Column: Fragmentation And Ascentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Submarine giant pumice: a window into the shallow conduit dynamics of a recent silicic eruption

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Explosive Eruption Styles, Columns, and Pyroclastic Fallout Deposits

Giordano,

Cas,

Wright

2024

Springer Textbooks in Earth Sciences, Geography and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sink or float: microtextural controls on the fate of pumice deposition during the 2012 submarine Havre eruption

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Silicic submarine volcanic eruptions can produce large volumes of pumices that may rise buoyantly to the ocean surface and/or sink to the seafloor. For eruptions that release significant volumes of pumice into rafts, the proximal to medial submarine geologic record is thus depleted in large volumes of pumice that would have sedimented closer to source in any subaerial eruption. The 2012 eruption of Havre volcano, a submarine volcano in the Kermadec Arc, presents a unique opportunity to study the partitioning of well-constrained rafted and seafloor pumice. Macro- and microtextural analysis was performed on clasts from the Havre pumice raft and from coeval pumiceous seafloor units around the Havre caldera. The raft and seafloor clasts have indistinguishable macrotextures, componentry, and vesicularity ranges. Microtextural differences are apparent as raft pumices have higher vesicle number densities (109 cm−3 vs. 108 cm−3) and significantly lower pore space connectivity (0.3–0.95 vs. 0.9–1.0) than seafloor pumices. Porosity analysis shows that high vesicularity raft pumices required trapping of gas in the connected porosity to remain afloat, whereas lower vesicularity raft pumices could float just from gas within isolated porosity. Measurements of minimum vesicle throat openings further show that raft pumices have a larger proportion of small vesicle throats than seafloor pumices. Narrow throats increase gas trapping as a result of higher capillary pressures acting over gas–water interfaces between vesicles and lower capillary number inhibiting gas bubble escape. Differences in isolated porosity and pore throat distribution ultimately control whether pumices sink or float and thus whether pumice deposits are preserved or not on the seafloor.

show abstract

Dynamics of a powerful deep submarine eruption recorded in H2O contents and speciation in rhyolitic glass: The 2012 Havre eruption

Cited by 26 publications

References 65 publications

Submarine giant pumice: a window into the shallow conduit dynamics of a recent silicic eruption

Submarine giant pumice: a window into the shallow conduit dynamics of a recent silicic eruption

Explosive Eruption Styles, Columns, and Pyroclastic Fallout Deposits

Sink or float: microtextural controls on the fate of pumice deposition during the 2012 submarine Havre eruption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About