Published in

Nature Research, Scientific Reports, 1(8), 2018

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-27065-1

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Spatter matters – distinguishing primary (eruptive) and secondary (non-eruptive) spatter deposits

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractSpatter is a common pyroclastic product of hawaiian fountaining, which typically forms vent-proximal ramparts or cones. Based on textural characteristics and field relations of spatter from the 1969 Mauna Ulu eruption of Kīlauea, Hawai’i, three spatter types were identified: (1) Primary spatter deposited as spatter ramparts and isolated cones during the peak of episode 1; (2) Late-stage spatter comprising dense, small volume, vent proximal deposits, formed at the end of episode 1; (3) Secondary spatter preserved in isolated mounds around tectonic ground cracks that we interpret to have formed by the disruption of overlying lava. We propose that not all spatter deposits are evidence of primary magmatic fountaining. Rather, deposits can be “secondary” in nature and associated with lava drain-back, disruption, and subsequent ejection from tectonic cracks. Importantly, these secondary pyroclastic deposits are difficult to distinguish from primary eruptive features based on field relations and bulk clast vesicularity alone, allowing for the potential misinterpretation of eruption vents, on Earth and in remotely sensed planetary data, thereby misinforming hazard maps and probabilistic assessments. Here, we show that vesicle number density provides a statistically-robust metric by which to discriminate primary and secondary spatter, supporting accurate identification of eruptive vents.