the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 15 May 2025
Brief communication: A magma depletion alternative for vent distribution in volcanic fields
Abstract. The location of a volcanic vent controls an eruption's hazards, intensities, and impact. Current kernel density estimation methods of future vent locations in volcanic fields assume that locations with more past-vents are more likely to produce future-vents. We examine an alternative hypothesis that an eruption depletes the magma source, causing holes or dips in the spatial density estimate for future vent locations. This is illustrated with the Auckland Volcanic Field, Aotearoa-New Zealand, where both magmatic and phreatomagmatic eruptions have occurred, according to the vent location, with the latter resulting in more explosive eruptions and hence hazard.
-
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
(787 KB)
-
Supplement
(153 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(787 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(153 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2010', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jun 2025
Review of “Brief communication: A magma depletion alternative for vent distribution in volcanic fields”
The authors present novel kernel density estimation approaches which adopt volume-dependent annular-shaped kernel functions and inverse-volume weights. The methods are tested on the Auckland Volcanic Field (AVF) vent opening dataset, of which the authors are worldwide experts. Fitting performances of the new methods are compared to a more classical isotropic Gaussian kernel estimation method in terms of log-likelihood and AIC. The authors claim that only one of the three new methods produces a better fitting that an isotropic Gaussian kernel in terms of AIC.
The manuscript is well written, Maths is correct and clear, and the topic is interesting and new. However, results are not yet convincing. Additional testing on other datasets and against other kernel approaches would be advised to complete the study.
MAIN COMMENTS
- ERUPTED VOLUME UNCERTAINTY
The authors should acknowledge that in the majority of volcanic fields a great percentage of erupted volumes are uncertain (or unknown). In fact, all the presented methods depend on past erupted volume and therefore depend on the quality of volume estimates, and cannot be applied when the volumes are not available. The effects of the uncertainty on the volume estimates at AVF should be evaluated and, if possible, considered in the likelihood estimates. - ANISOTROPIC GAUSSIAN KERNELS AND OTHER PRE-EXISTING METHODS
New methods performance should be tested against other well-performing kernel methods, and not only an isotropic Gaussian. Many other approaches have been already tested on the AVF and can be found in references. It would be interesting to compare the volume-depletion family against a broader list of pre-existing methods. - VENT CLUSTERS AND POLYGENETIC ERUPTIVE CENTERS
The idea of volume depletion is interesting but conflicts with commonly observed clustering trends and polygenetic centers. Therefore, the method may behave badly for calderas and volcanic fields that are not monogenetic. Testing the methods on other published vent opening dataset could be useful to understand its robustness. - DISCONTINUOUS KERNEL FUNCTIONS
The disk-based depletion method is based on kernel functions that are not continuous. Their jumps appear in the convolution results in Figure 2, and create an unrealistic “bubbly” appearance, regardless of its better AIC score. Could you make it smoother without decreasing performance? - WHY INCLUDING A BAD PERFORMING METHOD
The distance-multiplied method behaved poorly and I am not convinced of its usefulness in the manuscript. - MISSING REFERENCES
I acknowledge the limitation to 20 references, but I suggest to improve the reference list. - MISSING COORDINATES
Please indicate the coordinates and projection of the vent opening data in S3 and clarify their literature source(s) in the caption.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2010-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Melody Whitehead, 20 Jul 2025
- ERUPTED VOLUME UNCERTAINTY
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2010', Nicolas Le Corvec, 25 Jun 2025
This paper provides a valuable conceptual and methodological contribution by proposing a magma depletion-based alternative to standard kernel density estimation (KDE) for vent forecasting in volcanic fields. It is especially commendable for challenging the entrenched assumption that “more vents = higher likelihood,” and it offers an implementable framework with code and validation using the Auckland Volcanic Field.
Such contributions are essential for fostering open-mindedness in the scientific community, particularly in probabilistic volcanic hazard modeling, where epistemic uncertainties remain high.
To strengthen the study, it is important to acknowledge and address several key limitations:
1. Dimensionality Oversimplification
The models are inherently two-dimensional, whereas magma ascent and storage processes are fundamentally three-dimensional and evolve over time. This affects how spatial depletion is conceptualized and operationalized. Realistic modeling should account for vertical magma propagation, source region geometry, and the temporal dynamics of recharge and depletion.2. Geochemical and Structural Constraints
Previous work (e.g., Le Corvec et al., 2013 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggge.20223) has shown that closely spaced vents in monogenetic fields often share geochemical signatures, suggesting overlapping or connected magma sources rather than isolated zones subject to simple local depletion.
Additionally, Rangitoto’s complex and polygenetic eruptive history (e.g., McGee et al., 2011 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00410-011-0611-x) challenges the assumption that each eruption entirely depletes a discrete source.3. Vent Clustering and Eruption Grouping
The treatment of each vent as an independent event may misrepresent eruptive behavior in cases where multi-vent eruptions or spatial clustering occur. Grouping vents into eruption events prior to modeling may be necessary to avoid overestimating spatial depletion.Conclusion
This work is a welcome methodological advance that opens new avenues for spatial vent forecasting. It is suitable for publication pending minor revisions that acknowledge the dimensionality of the magmatic system and the temporal dynamics of source replenishment.
Nicolas Le CorvecCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2010-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Melody Whitehead, 20 Jul 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2010', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jun 2025
Review of “Brief communication: A magma depletion alternative for vent distribution in volcanic fields”
The authors present novel kernel density estimation approaches which adopt volume-dependent annular-shaped kernel functions and inverse-volume weights. The methods are tested on the Auckland Volcanic Field (AVF) vent opening dataset, of which the authors are worldwide experts. Fitting performances of the new methods are compared to a more classical isotropic Gaussian kernel estimation method in terms of log-likelihood and AIC. The authors claim that only one of the three new methods produces a better fitting that an isotropic Gaussian kernel in terms of AIC.
The manuscript is well written, Maths is correct and clear, and the topic is interesting and new. However, results are not yet convincing. Additional testing on other datasets and against other kernel approaches would be advised to complete the study.
MAIN COMMENTS
- ERUPTED VOLUME UNCERTAINTY
The authors should acknowledge that in the majority of volcanic fields a great percentage of erupted volumes are uncertain (or unknown). In fact, all the presented methods depend on past erupted volume and therefore depend on the quality of volume estimates, and cannot be applied when the volumes are not available. The effects of the uncertainty on the volume estimates at AVF should be evaluated and, if possible, considered in the likelihood estimates. - ANISOTROPIC GAUSSIAN KERNELS AND OTHER PRE-EXISTING METHODS
New methods performance should be tested against other well-performing kernel methods, and not only an isotropic Gaussian. Many other approaches have been already tested on the AVF and can be found in references. It would be interesting to compare the volume-depletion family against a broader list of pre-existing methods. - VENT CLUSTERS AND POLYGENETIC ERUPTIVE CENTERS
The idea of volume depletion is interesting but conflicts with commonly observed clustering trends and polygenetic centers. Therefore, the method may behave badly for calderas and volcanic fields that are not monogenetic. Testing the methods on other published vent opening dataset could be useful to understand its robustness. - DISCONTINUOUS KERNEL FUNCTIONS
The disk-based depletion method is based on kernel functions that are not continuous. Their jumps appear in the convolution results in Figure 2, and create an unrealistic “bubbly” appearance, regardless of its better AIC score. Could you make it smoother without decreasing performance? - WHY INCLUDING A BAD PERFORMING METHOD
The distance-multiplied method behaved poorly and I am not convinced of its usefulness in the manuscript. - MISSING REFERENCES
I acknowledge the limitation to 20 references, but I suggest to improve the reference list. - MISSING COORDINATES
Please indicate the coordinates and projection of the vent opening data in S3 and clarify their literature source(s) in the caption.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2010-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Melody Whitehead, 20 Jul 2025
- ERUPTED VOLUME UNCERTAINTY
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2010', Nicolas Le Corvec, 25 Jun 2025
This paper provides a valuable conceptual and methodological contribution by proposing a magma depletion-based alternative to standard kernel density estimation (KDE) for vent forecasting in volcanic fields. It is especially commendable for challenging the entrenched assumption that “more vents = higher likelihood,” and it offers an implementable framework with code and validation using the Auckland Volcanic Field.
Such contributions are essential for fostering open-mindedness in the scientific community, particularly in probabilistic volcanic hazard modeling, where epistemic uncertainties remain high.
To strengthen the study, it is important to acknowledge and address several key limitations:
1. Dimensionality Oversimplification
The models are inherently two-dimensional, whereas magma ascent and storage processes are fundamentally three-dimensional and evolve over time. This affects how spatial depletion is conceptualized and operationalized. Realistic modeling should account for vertical magma propagation, source region geometry, and the temporal dynamics of recharge and depletion.2. Geochemical and Structural Constraints
Previous work (e.g., Le Corvec et al., 2013 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggge.20223) has shown that closely spaced vents in monogenetic fields often share geochemical signatures, suggesting overlapping or connected magma sources rather than isolated zones subject to simple local depletion.
Additionally, Rangitoto’s complex and polygenetic eruptive history (e.g., McGee et al., 2011 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00410-011-0611-x) challenges the assumption that each eruption entirely depletes a discrete source.3. Vent Clustering and Eruption Grouping
The treatment of each vent as an independent event may misrepresent eruptive behavior in cases where multi-vent eruptions or spatial clustering occur. Grouping vents into eruption events prior to modeling may be necessary to avoid overestimating spatial depletion.Conclusion
This work is a welcome methodological advance that opens new avenues for spatial vent forecasting. It is suitable for publication pending minor revisions that acknowledge the dimensionality of the magmatic system and the temporal dynamics of source replenishment.
Nicolas Le CorvecCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2010-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Melody Whitehead, 20 Jul 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 925 | 37 | 19 | 981 | 27 | 14 | 39 |
- HTML: 925
- PDF: 37
- XML: 19
- Total: 981
- Supplement: 27
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Mark S. Bebbington
Melody G. Whitehead
Gabor Kereszturi
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(787 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(153 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper