|Title:||Geomorphometric variability of "monogenetic" volcanic cones: Evidence from Mauna Kea, Lanzarote and experimental cones||Authors:||Kervyn, M.
Ernst, G. G.J.
|UNESCO Clasification:||250621 Vulcanología||Keywords:||Volcanic cones
Mauna Kea, et al
|Issue Date:||2012||Publisher:||0169-555X||Journal:||Geomorphology||Abstract:||Volcanic cones are the most common volcanic constructs on Earth. Their shape can be quantified using two morphometric ratios: the crater/cone base ratio (Wcr/Wco) and the cone height/width ratio (Hco/Wco). The average values for these ratios obtained over entire cone fields have been explained by the repose angle of loose granular material (i.e. scoria) controlling cone slopes. The observed variability in these ratios between individual cones has been attributed to the effect of erosional processes or contrasting eruptive conditions on cone morphometry. Using a GIS-based approach, high spatial resolution Digital Elevation Models and airphotos, two new geomorphometry datasets for cone fields at Mauna Kea (Hawaii, USA) and Lanzarote (Canary Islands, Spain) are extracted and analyzed here. The key observation in these datasets is the great variability in morphometric ratios, even for simple-shape and well-preserved cones. Simple analog experiments are presented to analyze factors influencing the morphometric ratios. The formation of a crater is simulated within an analog cone (i.e. a sand pile) by opening a drainage conduit at the cone base. Results from experiments show that variability in the morphometric ratios can be attributed to variations in the width, height and horizontal offset of the drainage point relative to the cone symmetry axis, to the dip of the underlying slope or to the influence of a small proportion of fine cohesive material. GIS analysis and analog experiments, together with specific examples of cones documented in the field, suggest that the morphometric ratios for well-preserved volcanic cones are controlled by a combination of 1) the intrinsic cone material properties, 2) time-dependent eruption conditions, 3) the local setting, and 4) the method used to estimate the cone height. Implications for interpreting cone morphometry solely as either an age or as an eruption condition indicator are highlighted.||URI:||http://hdl.handle.net/10553/46242||ISSN:||0169-555X||DOI:||10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.009||Source:||Geomorphology [ISSN 0169-555X], v. 136 (1), p. 59-75|
|Appears in Collections:||Artículos|
checked on Mar 26, 2023
WEB OF SCIENCETM
checked on Mar 26, 2023
checked on Mar 4, 2023
Items in accedaCRIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.