Global Volcano Monitoring: What Does It Mean When Volcanoes Deform?

Biggs, Juliet; Pritchard, M. E.

doi:10.2113/gselements.13.1.17

Cited by 133 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our combined dataset encompasses InSAR measurements of 339 episodes of deformation at 160 different subaerial volcanoes and is spread globally across all arcs, rifts and oceanic islands (note that as this encompasses just InSAR measurements, this total is lower than number of records in either database, and lower than the 485 episodes of deformation in the appendix to Biggs and Pritchard, 2017, which combines both InSAR and ground-based measurements). This work is focussed on parameters of individual deformation episodes including deformation episode duration, maximum deformation rate, approximate signal area ('footprint') and inferred depth of the associated source.…”

Section: Data Sources: Catalogues and Databases Of Volcano Deformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite measurement limitations, some general trends can be observed in the relationship between displacement rate and other deformation signal parameters. There is a broad anti-correlation between displacement rate and duration (e.g., Fournier et al, 2010;Biggs & Pritchard, 2017), as deformation rates above a few 10s cm/yr tend not to continue longer than a few weeks to months (Laguna del Maule, 28 cm/yr., is a notable exception, e.g., Feigl et al, 2014). Deformation signals with large spatial footprints (> 1000 km 2 ) have low rates ( Figure 2B) and have been attributed to the growth of plutonic bodies in the mid to lower crust (e.g., Pritchard & Simons, 2004).…”

Section: Derived Deformation Source Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…InSAR measurements have now been made at over 500 volcanoes worldwide (including null results; Fournier et al, 2010;Biggs et al, 2014; supplemental material in Biggs and Pritchard, 2017;Global Volcanism Program, 2013) and have advanced our understanding of many of the physical processes that drive deformation (e.g., Pinel et al, 2014;Biggs & Pritchard, 2017 and references therein). However, the use of interferograms for volcano monitoring, especially in a decision-making context, remains challenging due to delays between data acquisition and delivery of 'raw' imagery, the historical lack of freely available imagery, and to a dearth of the experience needed to interpret diverse satellite datasets in many observatories (e.g., Dzurisin, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Synthesis of global satellite observations of magmatic and volcanic deformation: implications for volcano monitoring & the lateral extent of magmatic domains

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) measurements made over the past decades provide insights into the lateral extent of magmatic domains, and capture volcanic process on scales useful for volcano monitoring. Satellite-based SAR imagery has great potential for monitoring topographic change, the distribution of eruptive products and surface displacements (InSAR) at subaerial volcanoes. However, there are challenges in applying it routinely, as would be required for the reliable operational assessment of hazard. The deformation detectable depends upon satellite repeat time and swath widths, relative to the spatial and temporal scales of volcanological processes. We describe the characteristics of InSAR-measured volcano deformation over the past two decades, highlighting both the technique's capabilities and its limitations as a monitoring tool. To achieve this, we draw on two global datasets of volcano deformation: the Smithsonian Institution Volcanoes of the World database and the Centre for the Observation and Modelling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tectonics volcano deformation catalogue, as well as compiling some measurement characteristics and interpretations from the primary literature. We find that a higher proportion of InSAR observations capture non-eruptive and non-magmatic processes than those from ground-based instrument networks, and that both transient (< month) and long-duration (> 5 years) deformation episodes are under-represented. However, satellite radar is already used to assess the development of extended periods of unrest and long-lasting eruptions, and improved spatial resolution and coverage have resulted in the detection of previously unrecognised deformation at both ends of the spatial scale (~10 to > 1000 km 2 ). 'Baseline' records of past InSAR measurements, including 'null' results, are fundamental for any future interpretation of interferograms in terms of hazard‚ both by providing information about past deformation at an individual volcano, and for assessing the characteristics of deformation that are likely to be detectable (and undetectable) using InSAR. More than half of all InSAR deformation signals attributed to magmatic processes have sources in the shallow crust (< 5 km depth). While the depth distribution of InSAR-derived deformation sources is affected by measurement limitations, their lateral distribution provides information about the extent of active magmatic domains. Deformation is common (24% of all potentially magmatic events) at loci ≥5 km away from the nearest active volcanic vent. This demonstrates that laterally extensive active magmatic domains are not exceptional, but can comprise the shallowest part of trans-crustal magmatic systems in a range of volcanic settings.

show abstract

Section: Data Sources: Catalogues and Databases Of Volcano Deformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Derived Deformation Source Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Synthesis of global satellite observations of magmatic and volcanic deformation: implications for volcano monitoring & the lateral extent of magmatic domains

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Volcanic eruptions are inevitably preceded by the ascent of new magma toward shallow levels and are often accompanied by surface deformation [Biggs et al, 2014], offering the opportunity for early hazard identification using geodetic observations [e.g., Biggs and Pritchard, 2017;Dzurisin, 2006;Sparks, 2003]. Although preeruptive inflation has proven to be an invaluable source for volcanic hazard assessment, there are many examples of stratovolcano eruptions without observed inflation [e.g., Ebmeier et al, 2013;Lu and Dzurisin, 2014;Morales Rivera et al, 2016].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground deformation before the 2015 eruptions of Cotopaxi volcano detected by InSAR

Rivera

Amelung

Mothes

et al. 2017

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cotopaxi volcano started a period of volcanic unrest in April 2015 that led to a series of eruptions between August and November 2015. We use COSMO‐SkyMed Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar supported by continuous GPS observations spanning the period of 2014–2016 to obtain time‐dependent ground deformation data over Cotopaxi volcano related to the period of unrest and onset of eruptions. We find evidence of precursory deformation, with a maximum uplift on the western flank of 3.4 cm from April to August 2015. Deformation is explained by an inclined sheet intrusion located a few km southwest of the summit with an opening volume of 6.8 × 106 m3, extending from a depth of 12.1 km and shallowing to 5.5 km below the summit, that contributed to internal edifice growth. The temporal coincidence of deformation prior to the eruptions potentially suggests that short‐term eruptions at Cotopaxi are partly controlled by episodic edifice growth.

show abstract

“…Deformation has been reported at over 200 volcanoes globally (Biggs & Pritchard, 2017) and the majority of reported observations are based on satellite interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR). However, atmospheric artifacts can lead to the misinterpretation of volcanic deformation (i.e., Beauducel et al, 2000;Poland & Lu, 2008;Remy et al, 2015), particularly at tropical volcanoes where the water vapor content is high and rapidly varying (Ebmeier et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reevaluating Volcanic Deformation Using Atmospheric Corrections: Implications for the Magmatic System of Agung Volcano, Indonesia

Yip

Biggs

Albino

2019

Geophysical Research Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major challenge in using satellite interferometry (interferometric synthetic aperture radar) for volcanic monitoring in the tropics is distinguishing volcano deformation from atmospheric noise. We reanalyzed interferometric synthetic aperture radar time series from 2007-2009 from Agung volcano, Indonesia, which had previously been used as evidence for unrest. Using uncorrected data, we find an apparent velocity of 5.0 ± 2.7 cm/yr consistent with previous reports, but we show that this signal is consistent with predictions of atmospheric contributions derived from weather models (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts-High-Resolution). Following the correction, we find a velocity of 1.4 ± 4.2 cm/yr and conclude that there was no significant deformation related to the inflation of a shallow magma source from 2007-2009. We discuss the implications for the inferred magma storage system at Agung and consider which other reported signals might have been wrongly attributed to deformation and should be reanalyzed. Plain Language SummarySpace-based volcano monitoring is difficult in the tropics for a number of reasons including cloud cover in optical images and decorrelation between radar images. A major challenge in satellite-based volcano monitoring in the tropics is distinguishing volcano deformation from atmospheric noise. We reanalyzed spaceborne radar data over Agung volcano, Indonesia, where deformation was reported between 2007 and 2009. Using a high-resolution weather model, we show that the apparent velocity signals of about 5 cm/yr observed at Agung were caused by atmospheric noise. We conclude that there are no significant deformation signals related to a shallow magma source from 2007-2009. Finally, we consider the implications for the magma plumbing system beneath Agung.

show abstract

Global Volcano Monitoring: What Does It Mean When Volcanoes Deform?

Cited by 133 publications

References 30 publications

Synthesis of global satellite observations of magmatic and volcanic deformation: implications for volcano monitoring & the lateral extent of magmatic domains

Synthesis of global satellite observations of magmatic and volcanic deformation: implications for volcano monitoring & the lateral extent of magmatic domains

Ground deformation before the 2015 eruptions of Cotopaxi volcano detected by InSAR

Reevaluating Volcanic Deformation Using Atmospheric Corrections: Implications for the Magmatic System of Agung Volcano, Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About