1. Previous Work on Cinder Cones
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
Previous Work on Cinder Cones
Steve Taylor

2. Single Cone DEM Example
COMPOSITE
(n = 182)
(n = 165)
Composite Cone DEM Example

3. Taylor and Templeton, 2007

4. Taylor and Templeton, 2007

5. Taylor and Templeton, 2007

6. Cone lineaments anyone
Cone lineaments anyone? Question: How many lines can be created by connecting the dots between 296 select cone center points?

7. 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

8. 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?

9. CINDER CONE DEGRADATION MODELS: CONE MORPHOLOGY AND EROSION OVER TIME
Dan Dziekan and Rick Fletcher

10. 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

11. Cima Volanic Field – Dated Cones Increase Ages Increase Apron Area
Decrease Slope
Increased Drainage
Dohrenwend et al., 1986

12. STRUCTURAL CONTROLS ON CINDER CONE EMPLACEMENT
Jody Becker

13. Magma Ascent Via Fault-Related Plumbing
Newberry: Junction of Tumalo-Brothers-Walker Rim Fault Zones
Rooney et al., 2011

14. Rear-Arc Cinder Cone Emplacement Model
Strong and Wolff, 2003

15. Cinder Cone Emplacement

16. ANALYSIS OF CINDER CONE ALIGNMENT PATTERNS
Bill Vreeland

17. 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?

18. Lutz (1986) Two-Point Azimuth Method

19. Azimuth methods (Lutz 1986) Strip methods (Zhang and Lutz 1989)
Taylor and Templeton, 2007

20. 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

21. Cebria et al. (2011) Method
Random Lineaments skewness 0.26

22. Airborne Laser-Swath Altimetry
LIDAR METHODS:
Airborne Laser-Swath Altimetry
Kelsii Dana

23. 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

24. LIDAR Data Measurement
LIDAR Reflected Signals
First Returns: Vegetation and Cultural Features
Last Returns: Bare Earth

25. 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