Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Eruption at basaltic calderas forecast by magma flow rate

Abstract

Forecasting eruption is the ultimate challenge for volcanology. While there has been some success in forecasting eruptions hours to days beforehand, reliable forecasting on a longer timescale remains elusive. Here we show that magma inflow rate, derived from surface deformation, is an indicator of the probability of magma transfer towards the surface, and thus eruption, for basaltic calderas. Inflow rates ≥0.1 km3 yr−1 promote magma propagation and eruption within 1 year in all assessed case studies, whereas rates <0.01 km3 yr−1 do not lead to magma propagation in 89% of cases. We explain these behaviours with a viscoelastic model where the relaxation timescale controls whether the critical overpressure for dyke propagation is reached or not. Therefore, while surface deformation alone is a weak precursor of eruption, estimating magma inflow rates at basaltic calderas provides improved forecasting, substantially enhancing our capacity of forecasting weeks to months ahead of a possible eruption.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Unrest outcome as a function of the inflow rate in mafic calderas.
Fig. 2: Inflow rate, magma overpressure and related critical time.

Data availability

All data are available in the main text or in the supplementary materials. Source data supporting this research are also available in a permanent data repository at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6XYCJ. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

MATLAB scripts associated with Fig. 2 and Extended Data Figs. 2, 4 and 5 are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6XYCJ.

References

  1. Ripepe, M. et al. Infrasonic early warning system for explosive eruptions. J. Geophys. Res. 123, 9570–9585 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Newhall, C. G. & Dzurisin, D. Historical Unrest at Large Calderas of the World Vol. 2 (USGS Bulletin 1855, USGS, 1988).

  3. Phillipson, G., Sobradelo, R. & Gottsmann, J. Global volcanic unrest in the 21st century: an analysis of the first decade. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 264, 183–196 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Acocella, V., Di Lorenzo, R., Newhall, C. & Scandone, R. V. An overview of recent (1988 to 2014) caldera unrest: knowledge and perspectives. Rev. Geophys. 53, 896–955 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Reath, K. et al. Thermal, deformation, and degassing remote sensing time series (CE 2000–2017) at the 47 most active volcanoes in Latin America: implications for volcanic systems. J. Geophys. Res. 124, 195–218 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reath, K. et al. Using conceptual models to relate multiparameter satellite data to subsurface volcanic processes in Latin America. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 21, e2019GC008494 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Biggs, J. et al. Global link between deformation and volcanic eruption quantified by satellite imagery. Nat. Commun. 5, 3471 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jellinek, A. M. & De Paolo, D. J. A model for the origin of large silicic magma chambers: precursors of caldera-forming eruptions. Bull. Volcanol. 65, 363–381 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caricchi, L., Annen, C., Blundy, J., Simpson, G. & Pinel, V. Frequency and magnitude of volcanic eruptions controlled by magma injection and buoyancy. Nat. Geosci. 7, 126–130 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dvorak, J. J. & Dzurisin, D. Volcano geodesy: the search for magma reservoirs and the formation of eruptive vents. Rev. Geophys. 35, 343–384 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sandri, L., Acocella, V. & Newhall, C. Searching for patterns in caldera unrest. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 18, 2748–2768 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Edmonds, M. & Woods, A. W. Exsolved volatiles in magma reservoirs. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 368, 13–30 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rivalta, E. & Segall, P. Magma compressibility and the missing source for some dike intrusions. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032521 (2008).

  14. Blake, S. Volcanism and the dynamics of open magma chambers. Nature 289, 783–785 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Venzke, E. (ed.) Volcanoes of the World, v. 4.8.3. (Global Volcanism Program, Smithsonian Institution, accessed 27 September 2019); https://doi.org/10.5479/si.GVP.VOTW4-2013

  16. Nooner, S. L. & Chadwick, W. W. Inflation-predictable behavior and co-eruption deformation at Axial Seamount. Science 354, 1399–1403 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Poland, M. P., Takahashi, T. J. & Landowski, C. M. (eds.) in Characteristics of Hawaiian Volcanoes 179–234 (USGS Professional Paper 1801, USGS, 2014).

  18. Poland, M. P., Miklius, A., Jeff Sutton, A. & Thornber, C. R. A mantle-driven surge in magma supply to Kīlauea Volcano during 2003–2007. Nat. Geosci. 5, 295–300 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Degruyter, W. & Huber, C. A model for eruption frequency of upper crustal silicic magma chambers. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 403, 117–130 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Heap, M. J. & Violay, M. E. The mechanical behaviour and failure modes of volcanic rocks: a review. Bull. Vulcanol. 83, 33 (2021).

  21. Amoruso, A. & Crescentini, L. Shape and volume change of pressurized ellipsoidal cavities from deformation and seismic data. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005946 (2009).

  22. Heap, M. J., Vinciguerra, S. & Meredith, P. G. The evolution of elastic moduli with increasing crack damage during cyclic stressing of a basalt from Mt. Etna volcano. Tectonophysics 471, 153–160 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marsh, B. D. On the crystallinity, probability of occurrence, and rheology of lava and magma. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 78, 85–98 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stock, M. J. et al. Integrated petrological and geophysical constraints on magma system architecture in the western Galápagos Archipelago: insights from Wolf volcano. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GC007936 (2018).

  25. Gregg, P. M. et al. Stress triggering of the 2005 eruption of Sierra Negra volcano, Galápagos. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 13288–13297 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Le Mével, H., Gregg, P. M. & Feigl, K. L. Magma injection into a long‐lived reservoir to explain geodetically measured uplift: application to the 2007–2014 unrest episode at Laguna del Maule volcanic field, Chile. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 6092–6108 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nooner, S. L. & Chadwick, W. W. Volcanic inflation measured in the caldera of Axial Seamount: implications for magma supply and future eruptions. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GC002315 (2009).

  28. Novoa, C. et al. Viscoelastic relaxation: a mechanism to explain the decennial large surface displacements at the Laguna del Maule silicic volcanic complex. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 521, 46–59 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Liao, Y., Soule, S. A., Jones, M. & Le Mével, H. The mechanical response of a magma chamber with poroviscoelastic crystal mush. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB019395 (2021).

  30. Townsend, M. Linking surface deformation to thermal and mechanical magma chamber processes. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 577, 117272 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Segall, P. Magma chambers: what we can, and cannot, learn from volcano geodesy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 377, 20180158 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Blake, S. Magma mixing and hybridization processes at the alkalic, silicic, Torfajokull central volcano triggered by tholeiitic Veidivotn fissuring, south Iceland. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 22, 1–31 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bagnardi, M., Amelung, F. & Poland, M. P. A new model for the growth of basaltic shields based on deformation of Fernandina volcano, Galápagos Islands. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 377, 358–366 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bagnardi, M. & Hooper, A. Inversion of surface deformation data for rapid estimates of source parameters and uncertainties: a Bayesian approach. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GC007585 (2018).

  35. Valade, S. et al. Towards global volcano monitoring using multisensor sentinel missions and artificial intelligence: the MOUNTS monitoring system. Remote Sens. 11, 1528 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Edmonds, M., Cashman, K. V., Holness, M. & Jackson, M. Architecture and dynamics of magma reservoirs. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 377, 20180298 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sparks, R. S. J. et al. Formation and dynamics of magma reservoirs. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 377, 20180019 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dzurisin, D. (ed.) in Volcano Deformation 279–304 (Springer, 2007).

  39. Mogi, K. Relations between the eruptions of various volcanoes and the deformations of the ground surfaces around them. Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. 36, 99–134 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  40. McTigue, D. F. Elastic stress and deformation near a finite spherical magma body: resolution of the point source paradox. J. Geophys. Res. 92, 12931 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Okada, Y. Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, 1135–1154 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nikkhoo, M., Walter, T. R., Lundgren, P. R. & Prats-Iraola, P. Compound dislocation models (CDMs) for volcano deformation analyses. Geophys. J. Int. 208, 877–894 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fialko, Y., Khazan, Y. & Simons, M. Deformation due to a pressurized horizontal circular crack in an elastic half-space, with applications to volcano geodesy. Geophys. J. Int. 146, 181–190 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yang, X. M., Davis, P. M. & Dieterich, J. H. Deformation from inflation of a dipping finite prolate spheroid in an elastic half‐space as a model for volcanic stressing. J. Geophys. Res. 93, 4249–4257 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sigmundsson, F. et al. Unexpected large eruptions from buoyant magma bodies within viscoelastic crust. Nat. Commun. 11, 2403 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gaddes, M. E., Hooper, A. & Bagnardi, M. Using machine learning to automatically detect volcanic unrest in a time series of interferograms. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB017519 (2019).

  47. Hooper, A., Segall, P., Johnson, K. & Rubinstein, J. Reconciling seismic and geodetic models of the 1989 Kilauea south flank earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 19-1–19-4 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank L. Caricchi, S. Jónsson and F. Sigmundsson for constructive discussions. The grant to the Department of Science, Roma Tre University (MIUR-Italy Dipartimenti di Eccellenza, ARTICOLO 1, COMMI 314 – 337 LEGGE 232/2016) is gratefully acknowledged for covering the publication fee (V.A.). F.G. was partly supported by NASA grant 80NSSC21K0842 from the Interdisciplinary Science Program of the Earth Science Division. A.H. was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) through the Centre for the Observation and Modelling of Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tectonics (COMET) and the H2020 project EUROVOLC funded by the European Commission (grant number 731070).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

V.A. and F.G. conceptualized the work. F.G. collected the data. F.G. and A.H. developed the modelling. All authors contributed ideas and input to the research and writing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Galetto.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks Andrew Bell and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Rebecca Neely, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Unrest outcome as a function of the inflow rate in mafic calderas.

a) Duration of unrest and corresponding injection rates (Q). Here we include also the data from Axial Seamount. The dotted grey area and vertical dotted line have the same meaning than those in Fig. 1a and c. The purple area on the y axis marks the syn-eruptive rates of Kilauea in the last 40 years. b) Histogram of frequency of the rates associated with the unrest episodes.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Maximum overpressure (ΔPmax) and inflow rate (Q).

Maximum overpressures (ΔPmax) depending on inflow rate and volume of the reservoir, assuming a viscoelastic rheology with viscosity 4×1018 Pa s. Grey area indicates ΔPcrit =10 ± 4 MPa and dashed line ΔPcrit =10 MPa. Data below the grey area are in the viscous domain, promoting magma storage and plain unrest. Data above the grey area are in the elastic domain, promoting dyke nucleation.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Intruded volumes (V) as a function of the unrest duration (t).

Circles represent natural data (unrest nucleating dyke in less than 1 year) with t that should correspond to τe. All the points lie between the lower and higher values of V0, E and ΔPcrit used in our analysis (for the red line E=20 GPa, V0=20 km3 ΔPcrit=6 MPa, while for the yellow line GPa, E=60 GPa; V0=150 km3 and ΔPcrit=14 MPa).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 4 Time (τe) to reach ΔPcrit as a function of Q and V.

Time required to reach the critical overpressure to nucleate a dyke in the elastic domain as a function of the inflow rates Q and the volume of the reservoir V, using a) ΔPcrit=10 MPa and E = 60 GPa, b) ΔPcrit=6 MPa and E = 30 GPa, c) ΔPcrit=10 MPa and E =20 GPa. The thicker line marks t=1 year.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Qmin for nucleating a dyke and viscoelastic relaxation time (τv).

Red and blue lines show the variation of the minimum rates (Qmin) for nucleating a dyke in the viscous regime as a function of τv. Triangles represents the plain unrest episodes in our dataset. Asterisks are the unrest episodes nucleating dykes in more than 1 yr.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Unrest outcome as a function of Q considering only the mean of the Krafla cases.

a Duration of unrest and corresponding inflow rate, Q, as a function of unrest outcome. The grey area highlights the zone with transitional rates (5 ± 4 ×10−2 km3/yr). The vertical dotted grey line separates the unrest episodes lasting <1 year from those lasting >1 year. Krafla data have been reduced to a single data point (mean value) above the transition zone and in the upper transition zone. b Histogram of frequency of the inflow rates. Tr. Q,, L. Tz. and U. Tz. in panel b refer to transitional, lower transitional and upper transitional rates, respectively.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Distribution of the analysed mafic calderas.

Red triangles point calderas in Fig. 1. Magenta triangles highlight the two additional calderas (Kilauea and Axial Seamount) considered in Extended Data Fig. 1. Blue circles highlight the location of other mafic calderas where our results (also calibrated to different inflow rates) could be applied, although the shallow depth of the magma reservoir should be verified.

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Table 1

Geodetic data.

Supplementary Table 2

Data from Axial Seamount.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Injection rates and times (duration of the unrest). Data used for generating Fig. 1.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Injection rates and times (duration of the unrest episodes) used in Extended Data Fig. 1. Data in Supplementary Table 2. Additional data are those coming from calderas not considered in Fig. 1.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

In this table, we report the intruded volume (V) and the times of the considered unrest episodes.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

In this table, we report the inflow rates (Q) and the times of the considered unrest episodes.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

In this table, we report the inflow rates (Q) and the times of the considered unrest episodes.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7

Longitude and latitude of the calderas plotted in Extended Data Fig. 7. In the txt file named LonLatcaldereFig1 the longitude and latitude of the analysed mafic calderas are reported. In LonLatcaldereextraFigS1.txt there are the coordinates of the two calderas added in Extended Data Fig. 1. In LonLatcalderepotentialtarget.txt there are the coordinates of the additional potentially similar mafic calderas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galetto, F., Acocella, V., Hooper, A. et al. Eruption at basaltic calderas forecast by magma flow rate. Nat. Geosci. 15, 580–584 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00960-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00960-z

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing