eruption style at kīlauea volcano in hawai`i linked to ... · apr 26, 2010 2010-s3 transient...

1

Supplementary material

Samples and sample preparation

Over the two field seasons in 2009 and 2010, 79 samples erupted during the past ca. 600 years

from historical eruptions at the summit and upper rift zones were collected and 42 were selected

for analysis. The 42 samples include material from 25 eruptions over a 600-year period (suppl

table 1), which were characterized by eruption style (main paper table 1). The nature of the

deposits ranges from ash and lapilli beds to scoria/pumice pyroclasts and lava flow surfaces. Care

was taken to ensure that all samples had undergone rapid cooling on eruption to avoid sampling

inclusions that have undergone diffusive equilibration with regard to their Fe, Mg and H2O

compositions1-3. This limited the number of eruptions that could be sampled as many products are

crystalline and had not cooled sufficiently quickly to form even glassy selvages.

Supplementary Table 1: The age, sample number, style, locality and deposit type for each of the

eruptions sampled in this study.

Eruption date

Sample Eruption style Locality Deposit type References

~1400 1400-K Fissure Summit Pumiceous spatter 4 ~1445 1445-A Effusive Summit Pahoehoe flow top 5 ~1500 1500-1 Hawaiian

fountain Summit Pure reticulite 6

~1500 1500-BR Hawaiian fountain

Summit Pure reticulite 6

~1550 1550 Phreatomagmatic Summit Scoria, lithics, ash and accretionary lapilli

6

~1650 1600-6 Transient explosive

Summit Scoria, lapilli 7,8

1700 1700 Fissure SWRZ Dense spatter 6 1790 1790-1 Transient

explosive Summit Dense, pasty bomb crust 6

1790 1790-w Transient explosive

Summit Dense, rounded juvenile bombs 9

1820-1823 1823 Hawaiian fountain

Summit Golden pumice 10

Jan 1832 1832 Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 11 May 5, 1877 1877 Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 11 1882-1885 1885-A Effusive Summit Tumulus flow top 11 1882-1885 1885-B Effusive Summit Pahoehoe flow top 11 1919-1920 1920 Effusive SWRZ Pahoehoe flow top 12

Eruption style at Kīlauea Volcano in Hawai`i linked to primary melt composition I R Sides, M Edmonds*, J Maclennan, D A Swanson, B F Houghton

*corresponding author

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONDOI: 10.1038/NGEO2140

NATURE GEOSCIENCE | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 1

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ngeo2140

1

Supplementary material

Samples and sample preparation

Over the two field seasons in 2009 and 2010, 79 samples erupted during the past ca. 600 years

from historical eruptions at the summit and upper rift zones were collected and 42 were selected

for analysis. The 42 samples include material from 25 eruptions over a 600-year period (suppl

table 1), which were characterized by eruption style (main paper table 1). The nature of the

deposits ranges from ash and lapilli beds to scoria/pumice pyroclasts and lava flow surfaces. Care

was taken to ensure that all samples had undergone rapid cooling on eruption to avoid sampling

inclusions that have undergone diffusive equilibration with regard to their Fe, Mg and H2O

compositions1-3. This limited the number of eruptions that could be sampled as many products are

crystalline and had not cooled sufficiently quickly to form even glassy selvages.

Supplementary Table 1: The age, sample number, style, locality and deposit type for each of the

eruptions sampled in this study.

Eruption date

Sample Eruption style Locality Deposit type References

~1400 1400-K Fissure Summit Pumiceous spatter 4 ~1445 1445-A Effusive Summit Pahoehoe flow top 5 ~1500 1500-1 Hawaiian

fountain Summit Pure reticulite 6

~1500 1500-BR Hawaiian fountain

Summit Pure reticulite 6

~1550 1550 Phreatomagmatic Summit Scoria, lithics, ash and accretionary lapilli

6

~1650 1600-6 Transient explosive

Summit Scoria, lapilli 7,8

1700 1700 Fissure SWRZ Dense spatter 6 1790 1790-1 Transient

explosive Summit Dense, pasty bomb crust 6

1790 1790-w Transient explosive

Summit Dense, rounded juvenile bombs 9

1820-1823 1823 Hawaiian fountain


Jan 1832 1832 Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 11 May 5, 1877 1877 Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 11 1882-1885 1885-A Effusive Summit Tumulus flow top 11 1882-1885 1885-B Effusive Summit Pahoehoe flow top 11 1919-1920 1920 Effusive SWRZ Pahoehoe flow top 12


May 31,

1954

1954 Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 13

Nov 14,

1959

(1959)-E1 Hawaiian

fountain

Summit Pumice lapilli, achneliths and

Pele’s hair

14

Nov 26,

1959

(1959)-E2 Hawaiian

fountain

Summit Pumice and Pele’s hair 14

Nov 28,

1959

(1959)-E3 Hawaiian

fountain

Summit Pumice 14

Dec 6, 1959 (1959)-E5 Hawaiian

fountain

Summit Fluidal pumice lapilli 14


fountain



fountain


Dec 10,

1959

(1959)-E8 Hawaiian

fountain


Dec 14,

1959

(1959)-

E10

Hawaiian

fountain

Summit Pumice lapilli and achneliths 14

Dec 17,

1959

(1959)-

E15

Hawaiian

fountain


Dec 19,

1959

(1959)-

E16

Hawaiian

fountain


Jan 17, 1960 1960-KO Hawaiian

fountain

ERZ Golden pumice 14

Feb 1961 1961 Hawaiian

fountain

Summit Pumice lapilli 15

May 24,

1969

1996-mu Fissure ERZ Vesicular spatter 16

Sep 6, 1969 1969-7 Hawaiian

fountain

ERZ Golden pumice/reticulite 16

Dec 30,

1969

1969-8 Hawaiian

fountain

ERZ Pumice lapilli and achneliths 16

Aug 14,

1971

1971 Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 17

Nov 10,

1973

1973 Fissure ERZ Pumiceous spatter 18

Jul 19, 1974 1974-J1 Fissure ERZ Vesicular spatter 19

Jul 19, 1974 1974-J2 Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 19

Sep 19,

1974

1974-S Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 19

Apr 30,

1982

1982-1 Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 4

Sep 1982 1982-2 Fissure Summit Vesicular spatter 4

Apr 9, 2008 2008-S1 Transient

explosive

Summit Pumiceous bombs/lapilli and

lithics

20

Aug 27,

2008

2008-S2 Transient

explosive


lithics

20


Sep 2, 2008 2008-18 Transient

explosive


lithics

20

Apr 26,

2010

2010-S3 Transient

explosive


lithics

20

Microanalysis of olivine-hosted melt inclusions and matrix glasses

Multiple glass chips and olivine phenocrysts were hand-picked and mounted with epoxy to be

analysed first by secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), and then by electron microprobe and

laser ablation inductively-coupled mass spectrometry (LA ICP-MS). All of the inclusions

analysed were naturally quenched, 40-200 μm in size and not necked or breached by cracks.

The concentrations of H2O, CO2, Li and B were obtained by secondary ion mass spectrometry on

a Cameca IMF 4f ion microprobe at the NERC microanalytical facility at the University of

Edinburgh, using a 15kV primary beam of O- ions, using the general methodology published

previously (21

; 22

). Positive secondary ions were accelerated to 4500 eV, with an offset of -75eV

(for 1H and trace elements) and -50eV (for 12C) (+/- 20eV) to reduce transfer of molecular ions

into the secondary column. A 50 µm raster was performed for three minutes prior to the start of

each analysis, and a primary beam current of 5 – 6 nA used with a non-rastered, oval-shaped

beam covering a 15 – 20 µm area on single spots within the boundaries of the melt inclusions.

Peak positions were verified before each analysis. The following elements were analysed by

counting for 3 s in each of a 10 cycle run: 1H,

7Li,

11B,

25Mg,

30Si. These counts were then

normalised to 30

Si and converted to concentrations using a calibration curve populated by glass

standards. The relative ion yield for H correlates with SiO2 content, such that plotting 1H/

30Si

versus H2O yields a single working curve for glasses of variable SiO2 content22

. CO2

concentrations, however, require a correction for SiO2 content. The full list of glass standards

used is shown in suppl. table 3. Accuracy (given by , where is the mean of

the observed concentrations and is the reference concentration, in per cent) and precision

(given by 100s

xobs( ), where is the standard deviation on repeat measurements of

concentration, in per cent) were monitored throughout the sessions by repeat analysis of the

standards as unknowns: for H2O analyses these were >9% and <6% respectively; and for CO2

<11% and <8% respectively. The average CO2 and H2O backgrounds over seven sessions were

100xobs - xref( )xref( )

xobs

xref

s


56 ppm and 0.03 wt% respectively.

Carbon was measured independently of 1H, using the same beam conditions but with a 50 µm

image field to improve transmission at moderate mass resolution, which was sufficient to resolve

24Mg

2+ at the

12C peak position for background olivine measurements and inclusion analyses.

12C

was analysed for 3 s in each of 20 cycle run in which 24

Mg2+

, 28

Si2+

and 30

Si were also measured.

During data processing, the first 5 cycles of the 1H analyses and the first 10 cycles of the

12C data

were discarded to avoid the effects of surface contamination on the samples which may have

survived the cleaning process. Instrumental backgrounds were minimized by allowing samples

held in epoxy to outgas in a separate vacuum for at least ten hours prior to use in the SIMS

instrument.

Supplementary Table 3: List of standards used for secondary ion mass spectrometry in this study, on a

Cameca 4f ion probe at the NERC facility, Edinburgh.

Composition SiO2 H2O CO2

TPF Basalt 46.1 6.21

ST-1 Basalt 48.0 2.96 629

ST-2 Basalt 48.1 2.84 1261

ST-6 Basalt 48.7 1.58 914

CFD Basalt 48.0 1.391

ST-3 Basalt 48.8 1.33

2390-5 Basalt 48.6 0.68 176

TPA Basalt 48.2 0.403

2678-6 Basalt 50.0 0.21 229

Rb480 Rhyolite 73.6 9717

Rb497 Rhyolite 80.4 10055

Siss51 Rhyolite 75.6 424

The major element and volatile (S, Cl and F) compositions of the glasses, inclusions and host

olivines were determined using the Cameca SX100 electron microprobe at the University of

Cambridge. Quantitative determinations of elements were made using the wavelength dispersive

system with TAP, PET and LIF crystals. A range of metal, oxide and silicate (e.g. jadeite,

wollastonite) standards was used for calibration of the spectrometers. All analyses used an

accelerating voltage of 15kV. For olivine, a spot size of 4 µm and a 100 nA beam current was

used. For glasses, a 10 µm spot was used with a beam current of 60 nA for Cl, F, S, P, Cr and Ni,

and 4 nA for all other elements, with counting times of 50-200 s per analysis. During glass

measurements, Na peaks were counted first to avoid significant migration during the run. In

addition to calibration of each X-ray line, a series of secondary reference standards (olivines,

pyroxenes, feldspars and glasses) were measured daily to check accuracy, precision and totals.


Accuracy was in general better than 5% for most elements, based on 77 repeat analyses of EMPA

secondary standard 2390-5 and by comparison with reference concentrations for the standard,

with the exception of TiO2, K2O, P2O5 and Cl, which were better than 20-35 %. Detection limits

for S, Cl and F were 40, 38 and 170 ppm and precision was typically < 5% for all oxides, with the

exception of MnO, P2O5 and F, which was better than 20%.

LA ICP-MS analysis of trace elements in melt inclusions was performed at the Department of

Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge using a Perkin-Elmer Elan DRC II ICP-MS. This was

coupled to a UP213 Nd:YAG laser operating at 266 nm. A laser repetition rate of 10 Hz and laser

power of 1 mJ (10 J cm-1

) were used with a 60 µm diameter beam for most analyses and 40 µm

beam for smaller inclusions. Smaller beam sizes were avoided due to the reduction of signal

intensity with size. The standard NIST 610 (trace elements in a glass matrix 3mm wafer (National

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) was used for calibration of

element sensitivity23

. The 44

Ca concentration in each glass and inclusion sample was used for

internal standard normalization of the trace element signals and 12

Mg was used for olivine

measurements. Calibration accuracy was verified by repeat analysis of the USGS standards BCR-

2G, BHVO-2G and KL2-G (MPI-DING, Mainz) during each analytical run. Drift during the

analytical session was less than 10% each day and was compensated for by the internal standard

calculations. Accuracy and precision, based on 70 repeat analyses of glass KL2-G, was generally

better than 4% and 10% for most elements, respectively. Detection limits were in the sub-ppm

range for many of the elements.

Post-entrapment crystallization corrections

Once the melt inclusion has become trapped and the temperature of the system decreases,

crystallization of the host phase will begin to take place on the inclusion walls24,25

. In the absence

of re-equilibration between the host olivine and the newly crystallized olivine on the inclusion

wall, the new crystallization will be fractional. The olivine will be more magnesian than the

trapped melt, and will follow established Fe/Mg partitioning relationships26

, where KD =

(XFeO/XMgO)olivine/(XFeO/XMgO)melt = 0.30 +/- 0.04. This will deplete the trapped melt in Mg

relative to Fe2+

and the next increment of olivine will therefore be slightly less MgO-rich. The

overall effects of post-entrapment crystallization (PEC) are to produce an Fe-rich rim of olivine

immediately next to the melt inclusion, deplete the melt inclusion of all olivine-compatible

elements, and increase slightly the concentrations of incompatible elements. The melt inclusion


compositions in this study were corrected for variable amounts of PEC by calculation (using

Petrolog32). Petrolog3 applies an iterative correction scheme

1, requiring specification of the

measured major and minor element compositions of each inclusion, the forsterite content of the

host olivine, the H2O content of the inclusion and the oxidation state of the melt (the magnetite-

wustite buffer27

), where the Fe2+

was set to 90% of the total iron. The elements that are most

affected by the PEC process (and therefore the correction) are the olivine-compatible elements,

and therefore these are associated with the greatest degree of uncertainty. Variation of just +/- 1

Fo unit in the host olivine is equivalent to a range of corrected MgO contents between 8.1-10.3

wt%25

, compared to just 15% change in the concentration of an incompatible element.

A complicating factor in the PEC correction process is Fe-loss caused by diffusive re-

equilibration between the melt inclusion, the olivine host, and the carrier liquid3,28

. Fe-loss occurs

at slow cooling rates, whereby the Fe-rich olivine rim that crystallizes in the inclusion

equilibrates with the more magnesian host olivine. As Fe diffuses from the rim to the host, so the

inclusion also begins to equilibrate with the rim by “adding” Fe, to maintain the Fe/Mg

equilibrium. In order to correct for Fe-loss, the initial FeO content of the inclusion at the time of

entrapment must be known. Primitive MgO contents can be difficult to estimate, but the FeO

content of primitive melts is little affected by olivine crystallization29

, and is nearly constant

along the olivine control line. The input FeO value specified for the model calculations was 11.33

wt%, which was the average of the matrix glass FeO concentrations and agrees well with the

estimate of primitive melt FeO for Hawai`i29

(11.4 wt% +/-0.03). The assumption of a constant

FeO value may carry with it significant error if the olivines analyzed are mantle-derived

xenocrysts and not the result of low-pressure crystallization. PEC corrections typically required

0-20% olivine addition, although 5% of the inclusions required 20-35% (see supplementary

data spreadsheet).

Fig. 2 (main paper) shows that the olivines, and hence recalculated melt inclusions, are generally

not in equilibrium with the carrier liquids, which raises the question as to whether the PEC

correction process above is valid. The Rhodes plot in Fig. 2 shows that the olivines are generally

too primitive to be in equilibrium with their carrier liquids. We would argue that, by definition,

the process of melt inclusion entrapment requires isolation of a melt pocket caused by crystal

growth, and the melt and crystal growing at that point should therefore conform with established

olivine-melt equilibria. The composition of the olivine growing to trap the inclusion, however, is

unlikely to be representative of the bulk olivine composition. Cores are generally more primitive,


and the core composition is what is shown plotted on the Rhodes plot in Fig. 2. We do recognise,

however, that the melt inclusions may have been trapped by just a small amount of olivine

sealing an embayment, and that this olivine may have grown in a cooler melt than the core of the

olivine, which, from the Rhodes plot relationships in Fig. 2, may well have been remobilized

from a crystal mush prior to eruption. The PEC corrections may then have produced melt

inclusion compositions that are more primitive than they should be, by up to 2 wt% MgO. This

uncertainty only affects olivine-compatible elements, however, and this is why we focus on the

trace element compositions in this paper. This uncertainty does not affect the main results and

conclusions of this paper.

Geochemical data: major elements (see supplementary data spreadsheet for full dataset)

Suppl. Fig. 1: MgO covariation plots of major

element abundances for matrix glasses (triangles)

and melt inclusions (circles colored by eruption

style). Published whole rock data for historical

summit lavas (grey squares)30

. Representative error

bars based on 1 sigma precision on standard repeats

are shown.

Suppl. Fig. 3: Figure 4.18: MgO wt% versus trace

element concentrations of melt inclusions and

matrix glasses of Kīlauea and Lō`ihi, plotted as a

function of eruption style. Symbols, colors and

errors are identical to those in Suppl. Fig. 1, 2.


Suppl. Fig. 2: MgO covariation plots of major

element abundances. Error bars for P2O5 and

CaO/Al2O3 concentrations are smaller than the

symbol size.

Suppl. Fig. 4: S versus CO2 concentrations in

Kīlauea and Lō`ihi melt inclusions and glasses as a

function of eruption behavior. Errors shown are 1_

precision on standard repeats.

Suppl figure 5: Halogen concentrations versus

non-volatile and volatile elements in Kīlauea and

Lō`ihi melts. (a) Cl versus La; (b) F versus La; (c)

Cl versus H2O; (d) F versus H2O.


The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test

Owing to the broad range of volatile concentrations and the non-normal distribution of melt

compositions within each eruption category, determining whether the apparent geochemical

differences between eruption groups are significant is challenging. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov

(KS) test is a non-parametric (distribution-independent) statistical test that provides a means of

examining the difference between the melt inclusion populations. The analyses in each eruption

group are plotted together as cumulative histograms, where the number of analyses are scaled so

their cumulative sums are 100 and each step in the plots corresponds to a data point. Plotting the

data in this way removes any bias resulting from different numbers of analyses in each group and

allows comparison of the distribution of data in each population. For example, the histogram for

CO2 concentrations (Suppl Fig. 6) shows that 85% of the effusive inclusion population has CO2

concentrations <200 ppm, whereas only 55% of the high-Hawaiian fountain population have

<200 ppm CO2. The KS test uses the maximum offset in cumulative % at a given concentration

in order to ascertain if sets of melt inclusions are drawn from the same underlying population.

The greatest absolute difference between the plotted samples is the KS statistic. The KS statistic

for the difference between the fountain and effusive eruption styles in terms of CO2 is equal to

35.5%, which is the maximum difference between the two groups. The P-value for this KS

statistic is 0.021. P-values report how significant the difference is, and when P is <0.05, as it is in

this example, the null hypothesis (that there is no difference between the populations) can be

rejected at the >95% confidence level. The data confirm that different eruption styles at Kīlauea

are associated with significantly different pre-eruptive melt volatile signatures, with more than

95% certainty that each group is sampling different underlying populations. While the spread of

melt inclusion concentrations is comparable between eruption groups, the histograms highlight

the shifts between the distributions.

Suppl Fig. 6: Cumulative histogram for CO2 concentrations in the

effusive and high fountain inclusion populations. The maximum

difference between the two distributions at a fixed CO2

concentration is the KS statistic, D. Here D is equal to 0.355 or

35.5% with a P-value of 0.021. The closer the p-value to zero, the

more significant the difference between the two populations.


Supplementary Table 4: KS-Test Values for the pairs of distributions representing different eruption

styles considered in this study, for CO2 concentrations, Nb/Y ratio and the forsterite content of the olivines

(Fo). See text for explanation. Boxes highlighted in yellow show comparisons with P values less than 5%,

indicating a high degree of confidence that the data in those categories are samples of distinct populations.

CO2 Effusive Fissure High

Fountain

High Fountain,

w/o Kilauea Iki

Transient

Explosive

Effusive D = 0.4121

P = 0.012

D = 0.3578

P = 0.019

D = 0.3357

P = 0.050

D = 0.2728

P = 0.220

Fissure D = 0.4121

P = 0.012

D = 0.1950

P = 0.085

D = 0.1786

P = 0.303

D = 0.2376

P = 0.096

High Fountain D = 0.3578

P = 0.019

D = 0.1950

P = 0.085

D = 0.2627

P = 0.009

High Fountain,

w/o Kilauea Iki

D = 0.3357

P = 0.050

D = 0.1786

P = 0.303

D = 0.2214

P = 0.130

Transient

Explosive

D = 0.2728

P = 0.220

D = 0.2376

P = 0.096

D = 0.2627

P = 0.009

D = 0.2214

P = 0.130

Nb/Y Effusive Fissure High

Fountain

High Fountain,

w/o Kilauea Iki

Transient

Explosive

Effusive D = 0.2810

P = 0.032

D = 0.2686

P = 0.023

D = 0.1839

P = 0.391

D = 0.3654

P = 0.004

Fissure D = 0.2810

P = 0.032

D = 0.1139

P = 0.426

D = 0.2359

P = 0.029

D = 0.5411

P = 0.000


P = 0.023

D = 0.1139

P = 0.426

D = 0.5091

P = 0.000

High Fountain,

w/o Kilauea Iki

D = 0.1839

P = 0.391

D = 0.2359

P = 0.029

D = 0.3856

P = 0.000

Transient

Explosive

D = 0.3654

P = 0.004

D = 0.5411

P = 0.000

D = 0.5091

P = 0.000

D = 0.3856

P = 0.000

Fo mol% Effusive Fissure High

Fountain

High Fountain,

w/o Kilauea Iki

Transient

Explosive

Effusive D = 0.5874

P = 0.000

D = 0.6808

P = 0.000

D = 0.6518

P = 0.000

D = 0.5968

P = 0.000


Fissure D = 0.5874

P = 0.000

D = 0.4970

P = 0.000

D = 0.3976

P = 0.000

D = 0.3138

P = 0.001


P = 0.000

D = 0.4970

P = 0.000

D = 0.7018

P = 0.000

High Fountain,

w/o Kilauea Iki

D = 0.6518

P = 0.000

D = 0.3976

P = 0.000

D = 0.5255

P = 0.000

Transient

Explosive

D = 0.5968

P = 0.000

D = 0.3138

P = 0.001

D = 0.7018

P = 0.000

D = 0.5255

P = 0.000

Suppl Fig. 7: (a) CO2 versus Nb concentrations in Kīlauea and Lōìhi melt inclusions. Grey lines are

constant ratios of CO2/Nb; the value of 239 is that of undersaturated MORB glasses of the EPR31

; (b) H2O

versus Ce concentrations in the Kīlauea and Lōìhi inclusions, with grey lines of constant H2O/Ce ratios.

The dark grey shaded region within black dotted lines represents ratios previously determined for

undegassed submarine Hawaiian glasses32

. Ratios of 214, 186 and 157 were determined from analysis of

Lōìhi, Kīlauea and North Arch volcanics glasses. Light grey envelopes denote the errors on the

previously published ratios (8%).

Suppl Fig. 8: Cumulative histograms to show the comparison between melt inclusion populations

produced during different time periods using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The cumulative % refers to

the number of inclusions analysed for (a) CO2, (b) Nb/Y and (c) Fo mol% of the host olivines.

Pre-1500 AD

1510 - 1790 AD

1823 - 1885 AD

1919 - 1982 AD

2008 - 2010 AD

a b c

Cu

mu

lative

, %

100

50

0

CO , ppm2

0 200 400 600 800

Nb/Y Fo, mol%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 75 80 85 90


Supplementary references

1 Danyushevsky, L. V., Della-Pasqua, F. N. & Sokolov, S. Re-equilibration of melt inclusions

trapped by magnesian olivine phenocrysts from subduction-related magmas: petrological

implications. Contr. Mineral. and Petrol. 138, 68-83, (2000).

2 Danyushevsky, L. V. & Plechov, P. Petrolog3: Integrated software for modeling crystallization

processes. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 12, Q07021, (2011).

3 Gaetani, G. A., O’Leary, J. A., Shimizu, N., Bucholz, C. E. & Newville, M. Rapid reequilibration

of H2O and oxygen fugacity in olivine-hosted melt inclusions. Geology 40, 915-918, (2012).

4 Neal, C. A. & Lockwood, J. P. Geologic map of the summit region of Kīlauea Volcano, Hawaii.

US Geological Survey Map I-2759 1, (2003).

5 Clague, D. A., Hagstrum, J. T., Champion, D. E. & Beeson, M. H. Kīlauea summit overflows:

their ages and distribution in the Puna District, Hawai'i. Bull Volcanol 61, 363-381, (1999).

6 Swanson, D. A., Rose, T. R., Fiske, R. S. & McGeehin, J. P. Keanakākoʻi Tephra produced by

300years of explosive eruptions following collapse of Kīlauea's caldera in about 1500CE. Journal

of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 215, 8-25, (2012).

7 McPhie, J., Walker, G. & Christiansen, R. Phreatomagmatic and phreatic fall and surge deposits

from explosions at Kīlauea volcano, Hawaii, 1790 a.d.: Keanakakoi Ash Member. Bull Volcanol

52, 334-354, (1990).

8 Swanson, D., Rose, T. & Fiske, R. in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 0646.

9 Weaver, S., Houghton, B. & Swanson, D. in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2348.

10 Sharp, R. P., Dzurisin, D. & Malin, M. C. VOLCANISM IN HAWAII. US Geological Survey

Professional Paper 1, 395, (1987).

11 Brigham, W. T. The volcanoes of Kīlauea and Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii. (Bishop

Museum Press, 1909).

12 Rowland, S. & Munro, D. The 1919–1920 eruption of Mauna Iki, Kīlauea: chronology, geologic

mapping, and magma transport mechanisms. Bull Volcanol 55, 190-203, (1993).

13 Macdonald, G. A. & Eaton, J. P. Hawaiian volcanoes during 1954. (US Government Printing

Office, 1957).

14 Richter, D. H., Eaton, J., Murata, K., Ault, W. & Krivoy, H. Chronological Narrative of the 1959-

60 Eruption of Kīlauea Volcano, Hawaii. Vol. 537-E p. 73 (U.S. Govt. Print. Office

(Washington), 1970).

15 Richter, D. H. The 1961 eruption of Kīlauea volcano, Hawaii. (US Government Printing Office,

1964).

16 Swanson, D., Duffield, W., Jackson, D. & Peterson, D. Chronolo ical narrative of the 1969-71

Mauna Ulu eruption of Kīlauea volcano. Hawaii. US 8eol. Surv. Prof. Pap 1056, 55, (1979).

17 Duffield, W. A., Christiansen, R. L., Koyanagi, R. Y. & Peterson, D. W. Storage, migration, and

eruption of magma at Kīlauea volcano, Hawaii, 1971–1972. Journal of Volcanology and

Geothermal Research 13, 273-307, (1982).

18 Tilling, R. I., Christiansen, R. L., Duffield, W. A., Endo, E. T. & Holcomb, R. T. Volcanism in

Hawaii. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1, 405, (1987).

19 Lockwood, J. P. et al. Magma migration and resupply during the 1974 summit eruptions of

Kīlauea volcano, Hawaii. (US Government Printing Office, 1999).

20 Houghton, B. F., Swanson, D. A., Carey, R. J., Rausch, J. & Sutton, A. J. Pigeonholing pyroclasts:

Insights from the 19 March 2008 explosive eruption of Kīlauea volcano. Geology 39, 263-266,

(2011).

21 Hauri, E. et al. SIMS analysis of volatiles in silicate glasses: 1. Calibration, matrix effects and

comparisons with FTIR. Chemical Geology 183, 99-114, (2002).

22 Blundy, J. & Cashman, K. Petrologic Reconstruction of Magmatic System Variables and

Processes. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 69, 179-239, (2008).

23 Pearce, N. J. G. et al. A Compilation of New and Published Major and Trace Element Data for

NIST SRM 610 and NIST SRM 612 Glass Reference Materials. Geostandards Newsletter 21,

115-144, (1997).

24 Sobolev, A. Melt inclusions in minerals as a source of principle petrological information.

Petrology 4, 209-220, (1996).


25 Kent, A. J. R. Melt Inclusions in Basaltic and Related Volcanic Rocks. Reviews in Mineralogy

and Geochemistry 69, 273-331, (2008).

26 Roeder, P. L. & Emslie, R. F. Olivine-liquid equilibrium. Contr. Mineral. and Petrol. 29, 275-

289, (1970).

27 Rhodes, J. M. & Vollinger, M. J. Ferric/ferrous ratios in 1984 Mauna Loa lavas: a contribution to

understanding the oxidation state of Hawaiian magmas. Contr. Mineral. and Petrol. 149, 666-674,

(2005).

28 Qin, Z., Lu, F. & Anderson, A. T. Diffuse reequilibration of melt and fluid inclusions. The

American mineralogist 77, 565-576, (1992).

29 Putirka, K. D. Mantle potential temperatures at Hawaii, Iceland, and the mid-ocean ridge system,

as inferred from olivine phenocrysts: Evidence for thermally driven mantle plumes. Geochemistry,

Geophysics, Geosystems 6, Q05L08, (2005).

30 Garcia, M. O., Muenow, D. W., Aggrey, K. E. & O'Neil, J. R. Major element, volatile, and stable

isotope geochemistry of Hawaiian submarine tholeiitic glasses. Journal of Geophysical Research:

Solid Earth 94, 10525-10538, (1989).

31 Saal, A. E., Hauri, E. H., Langmuir, C. H. & Perfit, M. R. Vapour undersaturation in primitive

mid-ocean-ridge basalt and the volatile content of Earth's upper mantle. Nature 419, 451-455,

(2002).

32 Dixon, J. E. & Clague, D. A. Volatiles in Basaltic Glasses from Loihi Seamount, Hawaii:

Evidence for a Relatively Dry Plume Component. Journal of Petrology 42, 627-654, (2001).


eruption style at kīlauea volcano in hawai`i linked to ... · apr 26, 2010 2010-s3 transient...

Documents