4.5 Article

Paving the seafloor: Volcanic emplacement processes during the 2005-2006 eruptions at the fast spreading East Pacific Rise, 9°50′N

期刊

GEOCHEMISTRY GEOPHYSICS GEOSYSTEMS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2010GC003058

关键词

fast spreading mid-ocean ridge; EPR; 2005-2006 eruption; lava morphology; volcanic collapse; kipuka

资金

  1. NSF [OCE-0525863, OCE-0732366, OCE-0138088]
  2. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Vetlesen Foundation
  3. Division Of Ocean Sciences
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [0819469] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 2005-2006 eruptions near 9 degrees 50'N at the East Pacific Rise (EPR) marked the first observed repeat eruption at a mid-ocean ridge and provided a unique opportunity to deduce the emplacement dynamics of submarine lava flows. Since these new flows were documented in April 2006, a total of 40 deep-towed imaging surveys have been conducted with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's (WHOI) TowCam system. More than 60,000 digital color images and high-resolution bathymetric profiles of the 2005-2006 flows from the TowCam surveys were analyzed for lava flow morphology and for the presence of kipukas, collapse features, faults and fissures. We use these data to quantify the spatial distributions of lava flow surface morphologies and to investigate how they relate to the physical characteristics of the ridge crest, such as seafloor slope, and inferred dynamics of flow emplacement. We conclude that lava effusion rate was the dominant factor controlling the observed morphological variations in the 2005-2006 flows. We also show that effusion rates were higher than in previously studied eruptions at this site and varied systematically along the length of the eruptive fissure. This is the first well-documented study in which variations in seafloor lava morphology can be directly related to a well documented ridge-crest eruption where effusion rate varied significantly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据