Previous Work on Cinder Cones REVIEW OF LITERATURE: Previous Work on Cinder Cones Steve Taylor
Single Cone DEM Example COMPOSITE (n = 182) (n = 165) Composite Cone DEM Example
Taylor and Templeton, 2007
Taylor and Templeton, 2007
Taylor and Templeton, 2007
Cone lineaments anyone Cone lineaments anyone? Question: How many lines can be created by connecting the dots between 296 select cone center points?
Answer: Total Lines = [n(n-1)]/2 = [296 Answer: Total Lines = [n(n-1)]/2 = [296*295]/2 = 43,660 possible line combinations Follow-up Question: Which cone lineaments are due to random chance and which are statistically and geologically significant? Taylor and Templeton, 2007
ES407 RESEARCH QUESTIONS REVISITED Are there morphologic groupings of ~400 cinder cones at Newberry? Can they be quantitatively documented? Are morphologic groupings associated with age and state of erosional degradation? Have cone morphologies been modified by post-emplacement glaciation (USGS, 2010)? Are there spatial alignment patterns? Can they be statistically documented? Do regional stress fields and fault mechanics control the emplacement of cinder cones at Newberry volcano?
CINDER CONE DEGRADATION MODELS: CONE MORPHOLOGY AND EROSION OVER TIME Dan Dziekan and Rick Fletcher
Cinder Cone Degradation Over Time Primary Cone Shape Angle of Repose ~33o Cone Height Decrease Cone Slope Decrease Increased Drainage Density Time Valentine et al., 2006
Cima Volanic Field – Dated Cones Increase Ages Increase Apron Area Decrease Slope Increased Drainage Dohrenwend et al., 1986
STRUCTURAL CONTROLS ON CINDER CONE EMPLACEMENT Jody Becker
Magma Ascent Via Fault-Related Plumbing Newberry: Junction of Tumalo-Brothers-Walker Rim Fault Zones Rooney et al., 2011
Rear-Arc Cinder Cone Emplacement Model Strong and Wolff, 2003
Cinder Cone Emplacement
ANALYSIS OF CINDER CONE ALIGNMENT PATTERNS Bill Vreeland
Answer: Total Lines = [n(n-1)]/2 = [296 Answer: Total Lines = [n(n-1)]/2 = [296*295]/2 = 43,660 possible line combinations Follow-up Question: Which cone lineaments are due to random chance and which are statistically and geologically significant?
Lutz (1986) Two-Point Azimuth Method
Azimuth methods (Lutz 1986) Strip methods (Zhang and Lutz 1989) Taylor and Templeton, 2007
Cebria et al. (2011) Method Calatrava Spain: Lines < 5 km Select lines shorter than one third of one standard deviation below mean Guanajuato Mexico: lines < 12 km
Cebria et al. (2011) Method Random Lineaments skewness 0.26
Airborne Laser-Swath Altimetry LIDAR METHODS: Airborne Laser-Swath Altimetry Kelsii Dana
LIDAR Data Measurement LIDAR: Light Detection and Ranging Laser apparatus sends pulses to surface Laser reflected: travel time and distance determined using speed of light Laser Pulse Reflection First Return Last Return
LIDAR Data Measurement LIDAR Reflected Signals First Returns: Vegetation and Cultural Features Last Returns: Bare Earth
Oregon LIDAR Consortium Goal: to provide high quality LIDAR data for the state Formed in 2007 by Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), data collected since 2003 Newberry LIDAR Funded by USGS, collected in 2010