the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Anatomy of a High-Silica Eruption as Observed by a Local Seismic Network: The June 2011 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle Event (Southern Andes, Chile)
Abstract. High-silica explosive eruptions are one of the most dangerous natural phenomena, yet it is unclear which processes are involved in this infrequent kind of events. We present the first systematic characterization of near-field seismicity associated to a large high-silica eruption analyzing data recorded before, during and after the June 4th 2011 rhyolitic eruption of Puyehue Cordón Caulle Volcanic Complex (PCCVC). Results of a first-level data processing, developed by The Southern Andean Volcano Observatory (OVDAS) to monitor unrest and the evolution of the eruption, are complemented here with the relocation of hypocenters into a local 1D velocity model, time-series of the b-value and the computation of focal mechanism. This information allows us to define several phases before and after the onset of the eruption, describing details of the space-time evolution of seismicity, defining and characterizing the seismic sources, identifying the structural-control of the magmatic intrusion and stress variations during the eruption. Our results illuminate several underlying processes, with emphasis on the possible role that basement structures had on the storage, transport and evacuation of magma. Integrating our results with previous findings based on satellite geodesy and petrology of erupted materials, we discuss general conceptual models regarding destabilization of structurally-controlled acidic magmatic systems, the pass from unrest to eruption, changes in eruptive style and waning phases of eruptions, with broader implications for monitoring and forecast of violent silicic eruptions.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(7311 KB)
-
Supplement
(1648 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7311 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1648 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-182', Philippe Lesage, 01 Jul 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andres Tassara, 24 Sep 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-182', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Jul 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andres Tassara, 24 Sep 2022
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-182', Virginie Pinel, 15 Jul 2022
Two reviewers have now provided detailed comments on your manuscript. They are both positive about the scientific interest of your study and the clarity of the writing. However, they have recommended that some specific points be clarified, particularly with regard to the methodology followed. I suggest that you address these points in particular, on the calculation and physical interpretation of the evolution of the b-value, before submitting a revised version of your manuscript, which should then represent a significant contribution to the field.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-182-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Andres Tassara, 24 Sep 2022
Dear Dr. Pinel,
we largely appreciate the comments and suggestions posted by both reviewers and tried to implement all of them in the new version of our manuscript. Particularly, we modified the method for b-value calculations by adapting our codes to the b-positive method of van der Elst (2021) as suggested by RC1, which had a significant impact on the computed b-value time series making our results more robust and interpretable. We also performed a deeper analysis of tremor polarization as also suggested by RC1. We also moved some figures from the supplementary material to the main text and created new figures as suggested by both reviewers. Particularly, we made an attempt to summarize our main results and constraints from previous authors in a conceptual scheme with time evolution of the main processes discussed in the text, as suggested by R2. All in all, we feel that the manuscript was greatly improved in its form and content and are very grateful to the reviewers and the editor.
Hoping that you will appreciate the changes included in our work and looking forward to upload the final version of the manuscript,
Andrés Tassara on behalf of the coauthors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-182-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Andres Tassara, 24 Sep 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-182', Philippe Lesage, 01 Jul 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andres Tassara, 24 Sep 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-182', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Jul 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andres Tassara, 24 Sep 2022
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-182', Virginie Pinel, 15 Jul 2022
Two reviewers have now provided detailed comments on your manuscript. They are both positive about the scientific interest of your study and the clarity of the writing. However, they have recommended that some specific points be clarified, particularly with regard to the methodology followed. I suggest that you address these points in particular, on the calculation and physical interpretation of the evolution of the b-value, before submitting a revised version of your manuscript, which should then represent a significant contribution to the field.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-182-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Andres Tassara, 24 Sep 2022
Dear Dr. Pinel,
we largely appreciate the comments and suggestions posted by both reviewers and tried to implement all of them in the new version of our manuscript. Particularly, we modified the method for b-value calculations by adapting our codes to the b-positive method of van der Elst (2021) as suggested by RC1, which had a significant impact on the computed b-value time series making our results more robust and interpretable. We also performed a deeper analysis of tremor polarization as also suggested by RC1. We also moved some figures from the supplementary material to the main text and created new figures as suggested by both reviewers. Particularly, we made an attempt to summarize our main results and constraints from previous authors in a conceptual scheme with time evolution of the main processes discussed in the text, as suggested by R2. All in all, we feel that the manuscript was greatly improved in its form and content and are very grateful to the reviewers and the editor.
Hoping that you will appreciate the changes included in our work and looking forward to upload the final version of the manuscript,
Andrés Tassara on behalf of the coauthors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-182-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Andres Tassara, 24 Sep 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
349 | 171 | 16 | 536 | 44 | 5 | 3 |
- HTML: 349
- PDF: 171
- XML: 16
- Total: 536
- Supplement: 44
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Daniel Basualto
Andrés Tassara
Jonathan Lazo-Gil
Luis Franco-Marin
Carlos Cardona
Juan Jose San Martín
Fernando Gil-Cruz
Marcela Calabi-Floddy
Cristian Farías
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7311 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1648 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper