4.5 Article

Decadal volcanic deformation in the Central Andes Volcanic Zone revealed by InSAR time series

期刊

GEOCHEMISTRY GEOPHYSICS GEOSYSTEMS
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 1358-1374

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/ggge.20074

关键词

InSAR; volcano; Andes; geodesy

资金

  1. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) [NNX08AT02G]
  2. Science Mission Directorate's Earth Science Division
  3. NSF (National Science Foundation) [0908281]
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences [0908281] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decadal trends of volcanic deformation in the Central Andes Volcanic Zone (CVZ) are identified with Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) stacks and time series velocity maps covering an area 19 degrees S-27 degrees S and 66 degrees W-69 degrees W. We combine over 750 ERS and Envisat interferograms from two descending and three ascending tracks. These tracks cover 100,000 km (2) and span 1992-2011. Our analysis extends observations at Cerro Blanco, Uturuncu, and Lazufre volcanic centers and uncovers two previously undocumented deformation centers: Cerro Overo in Northern Chile and Putana Volcano in Southwest Bolivia. Cerro Overo exhibits a transition from steady -0.4 cm/yr deflation to 0.5 cm/yr inflation over several years. Putana Volcano underwent a short-lived episode of uplift between 13 September 2009 and 31 January 2010, with a maximum uplift of 4.0 cm. Cerro Blanco continues -1.0 cm/yr deflation since 1995. Uplift at Lazufre began between 1997 and 2000 and has gradually accelerated to 3.5 cm/yr since 2005. Uturuncu volcano continues 1.0 cm/yr monotonic uplift since 1992 and shows evidence for a broad moat of subsidence surrounding the uplifting region. Four of the nine deformation events in the CVZ are not obviously associated with a particular volcanic edifice. Furthermore, there is significant spatial and temporal variability of these deformation events within a small geographic area.

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