Towards scientific forecasting of magmatic eruptions

Acocella, Valerio; Ripepe, Maurizio; Rivalta, Eleonora; Peltier, Aline; Galetto, Federico; Joseph, Erouscilla

doi:10.1038/s43017-023-00492-z

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 188 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Forecasting shifts in activity at long-active, open-vent volcanoes such as El Reventador remains extremely difficult as precursory signals are often enigmatic and can be lost in and amongst the daily activity signals (e.g., Cameron et al, 2018;Kilburn and Bell, 2022;Acocella et al, 2023). As there is an open system and magma can freely ascend, many of the traditional precursory signals are not applicable.…”

Section: Forecasting a Long-lived Active Volcanomentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty years of explosive-effusive activity at El Reventador volcano (Ecuador) recorded in its geomorphology

Vallejo,

Diefenbach,

Gaunt

et al. 2024

Front. Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shifts in activity at long-active, open-vent volcanoes are difficult to forecast because precursory signals are enigmatic and can be lost in and amongst daily activity. Here, we propose that crater and vent morphologies, along with summit height, can help us bring some insights into future activity at one of Ecuador’s most active volcanoes El Reventador. On 3 November 2002, El Reventador volcano experienced the largest eruption in Ecuador in the last 140 years and has been continuously active ever since with transitions between and coexistence of explosive and effusive activity, characterized by Strombolian and Vulcanian behavior. Based on the analysis of a large dataset of thermal and visual images, we determined that in the last 20 years of activity, the volcano faced three destructive events: A. Destruction of the upper part of the summit leaving a north-south breached crater (3 November 2002), B. NE border crater collapse (2017), and C. NW flank collapse (2018), with two periods of reconstruction of the edifice: Period 1. Refill of the crater (2002-early 2018) and Period 2. Refill of the 2018 scar (April 2018–December 2022). Through photogrammetric analysis of visual and thermal images acquired in 11 overflights of the volcano, we created a time-series of digital elevation models (DEMs) to determine the maximum height of the volcano at each date, quantify the volume changes between successive dates, and characterize the morphological changes in the summit region. We estimate that approximately 34.1x106 m3 of volcanic material was removed from the volcano due to destructive events, whereas 64.1x106 m3 was added by constructive processes. The pre-2002 summit height was 3,560 m and due to the 2002 eruption it decreased to 3,527 m; it regained its previous height between 2014 and 2015 and the summit crater was completely filled by early April 2018. Event A resulted from an intrusion of magma that erupted violently; we proposed that Events B and C could be a result of an intrusion as well but may also be due to a lack of stability of the volcano summit which occurs when it reaches its maximum height of approximately 3,590 and 3,600 m.

show abstract

Section: Forecasting a Long-lived Active Volcanomentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty years of explosive-effusive activity at El Reventador volcano (Ecuador) recorded in its geomorphology

Vallejo,

Diefenbach,

Gaunt

et al. 2024

Front. Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A nearly continuous deformation time series from 1998 through the present covering the past three eruptions has revealed that Axial exhibits a relatively repeatable inflation-deflation cycle, which has allowed for two successful eruption forecasts (Chadwick et al, 2012;Nooner & Chadwick, 2016). Even though Axial itself does not pose a direct threat to humans because of its remoteness, insight gleaned from observations made at Axial contribute to a growing body of knowledge about eruptive precursors that can be applied to more threatening locations (Acocella et al, 2024).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compartmentalization of Axial Seamount's Magma Reservoir Inferred by Analytical and Numerical Deformation Modeling With Realistic Geometry

Slead,

Wei,

Nooner

et al. 2024

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Axial Seamount is a submarine volcano on the Juan de Fuca Ridge with enhanced magma supply from the Cobb hotspot. We compare several deformation model configurations to explore how the spatial component of Axial's deformation time series relates to magma reservoir geometry imaged by multi‐channel seismic (MCS) surveys. To constrain the models, we use vertical displacements from seafloor pressure sensors and repeat autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) bathymetric surveys between 2016 and 2020. We show that implementing the MCS‐derived 3D main magma reservoir (MMR) geometry with uniform pressure in a finite element model with uniform elastic host rock properties poorly fits the geodetic data. To test the hypothesis that there is compartmentalization within the MMR that results in heterogeneous pressure distribution, we compare analytical models using various horizontal sill configurations constrained by the MMR geometry. Using distributed pressure sources significantly improves the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) between the inflation data and the models by an order of magnitude. The RMSE between the AUV data and the models is not improved as much, likely due to larger uncertainty of the AUV data. The models estimate the volume change for the 2016–2020 inter‐eruptive inflation period to be between 0.054 and 0.060 km3 and suggest that the MMR is compartmentalized, with most magma accumulating in sill‐like bodies embedded in crystal mush along the western‐central edge of the MMR. The results reveal the complexity of Axial's plumbing system and demonstrate the utility of integrating geodetic data and seismic imagery to gain insights into magma storage at active volcanoes.

show abstract

“…Rapid advances in monitoring instrumentations and techniques offers opportunities to improve detection, forecasting, and response to volcanic activities and hazards (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017; Pallister et al, 2019;Power et al, 2020;Lowenstern et al, 2022). Integration of multi-parameter datasets and the use of novel techniques (e.g., aerial imaging and gas sampling by drone, UV SO 2 camera), along with enhanced spatiotemporal resolution and coverage through the combination of ground-and space-based monitoring capabilities, have improved unrest detection, evolution of eruptions, changes in eruption styles, mapping of eruption products and impacts, and enhanced eruption forecasts and hazard as3sessment (e.g., Scarpa, 2001;Sparks, 2003;Marzocchi et al, 2008;Tilling, 2008;Segall, 2013;Winson et al, 2014;Acocella et al, 2023). Significant eruptions such as Mount St. Helens in 1980 (Lipman and Mullineaux, 1981;Dzurisin, 2018), Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (Newhall and Punongbayan, 1996), Merapi in 2010 (Surono et al, 2012;Ratdomopurbo et al, 2013), Bardarbunga in 2014 (Sigmundsson et al, 2015), and Kilauea in 2018 (Neal et al, 2019;Neal and Anderson, 2020) have demonstrated the value of monitoring infrastructure and monitoring data in anticipating these events and their hazards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The global volcano monitoring infrastructure database (GVMID)

Widiwijayanti,

Thin Zar Win,

Espinosa-Ortega

et al. 2024

Front. Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring volcanoes is of the most importance in volcano risk mitigation to safeguard lives and economies. Thanks to recent technological advances, both on-ground and in space, our understanding of volcanic processes has improved significantly. Though there is no one-system-fits-all, optimizing infrastructure for efficient monitoring stands as key objective. The impacts of volcanic hazards can span from local to global scales, affecting us both in the short and long term. This highlights the worldwide significance of improving volcano monitoring. Previously reliant on local ground-based instruments, today’s monitoring approach is enhanced by remote and space-based techniques such as satellite remote sensing, scanning-Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (DOAS), and infrasound. Designing an effective monitoring infrastructure for volcano observatories involves careful consideration of various factors such as network coverage, type of sensors, data transmission, and power supply to ensure that the targeted parameters meet the specific needs of each volcano (e.g., type of activities, early warning systems). Additionally, fostering collaboration and information sharing within the global scientific community is essential for addressing the current challenges in volcanology. In line with this, we’ve established the Global Volcano Monitoring Infrastructure Database (GVMID) to compile data from volcano monitoring across the globe. Global Volcano Monitoring Infrastructure Database serves as an integral component of WOVOdat, the global volcano unrest database, aiming to enhance our understanding of eruptive processes and improve eruption forecasts. The database incorporates monitoring metadata comprising networks, stations, and instruments, all standardized and managed using a MySQL relational database management system. Accessed through a web-based interface (https://wovodat.org/gvmid/home.php), GVMID offers an informative snapshot and foundational overview of the techniques and instruments in place at diverse volcanoes. This interactive platform allows for queries, visualizations, and downloads, serving as a valuable resource for the volcano community. GVMID can assist observatories in various ways, by: (a) Facilitating the setup or enhancement of monitoring systems for specific volcanoes. (b) Providing insights into the latest monitoring technologies and instrumentation. (c) Identifying existing monitoring gaps that could be addressed through remote sensing infrastructure and future instrument deployments. We extend an invitation to the global volcano community to actively participate in the development and enrichment of GVMID. Our aim is for it to become a continually updated and indispensable resource that caters to diverse needs within the volcanology community.

show abstract

Towards scientific forecasting of magmatic eruptions

Cited by 12 publications

References 188 publications

Twenty years of explosive-effusive activity at El Reventador volcano (Ecuador) recorded in its geomorphology

Twenty years of explosive-effusive activity at El Reventador volcano (Ecuador) recorded in its geomorphology

Compartmentalization of Axial Seamount's Magma Reservoir Inferred by Analytical and Numerical Deformation Modeling With Realistic Geometry

The global volcano monitoring infrastructure database (GVMID)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About