Shiveluch volcano: Seismicity, deep structure and forecasting eruptions ( Kamchatka)

Institute of Volcanic Geology and Geochemistry, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky 683006, Russia
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research (Impact Factor: 2.54). 06/1997; 78(1-2):121-137. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-0273(96)00108-4


The deep structure, Wadati-Benioff zone (focal zone) geometry and the magma feeding system of Shiveluch volcano are investigated based on 1962–1994 detailed seismic surveillance.A focal zone beneath Shiveluch is dipping at an angle of 70° at depths of 100–200 km. Based on the revealed interrelations between seismicity at depths of 105–120 km and an extrusive phase of its eruptions in 1980 through 1994, it is inferred that primary magmas, periodically feeding the crustal chamber, are melted at depths of at least 100 km. An upsurge of extrusive-explosive activity at the volcano is preceded and accompanied by the increasing number and energy of both volcanic earthquakes beneath the dome and tectonic or volcano-tectonic earthquakes in the zones of NW-striking crustal faults near the volcano.The eruption of April 1993 has been the most powerful since 1964. It was successfully predicted based on interactive use of all seismic data. At the same time the influence of seismicity at depths of 105–120 km under the volcano on the style (and consequently on prediction) of its activity is decisive.

9 Reads
  • Source
    • "). Due to its unique position and almost constant activity, the KGV has been the focus of extensive research. More than 1000 papers were published on the area, including works on petrology (e.g., Flerov et al., 1984; Flerov and Ovsyannikov, 1991; Khrenov et al., 1991; Khubunaya et al., 1994; Volynets, 1994; Kersting and Arculus, 1995; et al., 1999; Dorendorf et al., 2000; Ozerov, 2000; Churikova et al., 2001, 2007, 2013; Ishikawa et al., 2001; Mironov et al., 2001; Yogodzinski et al., 2001; Dosseto et al., 2003; Bindeman et al., 2004; Münker et al., 2004; Portnyagin et al., 2007a, 2007b; 2009; Auer et al., 2009; Gorbach and Portnyagin, 2011; Mironov and Portnyagin, 2011; Almeev et al., 2013a,b; Gorbach et al., 2013; Dosseto and Turner, 2014), geophysics (e.g., Tokarev and Zobin, 1970; Balesta, 1991; Gorelchik et al., 1997, 2004; Levin et al., 2002; Park et al., 2002; Davaille and Lees, 2004; Khubunaya et al., 2007; Senyukov et al., 2009; Fedotov et al., 2010, 2011; Thelen et al., 2010; Koulakov et al., 2011; Grapenthin et al., 2013; Iwasaki et al., 2013; Kugaenko et al., 2013; West, 2013), geochronology (e.g., Braitseva et al., 1991; Calkins, 2004; Ponomareva et al., 2006, 2007a, 2013; Pevzner et al., 2014) and other related subjects (e.g., Ovsyannikov et al., 1985; Belousov, 1995, 1996; Muravyev et al., 2002; Melekestsev, 2005; Grishin and Shlyakhov, 2009; Gilichinsky et al., 2010; Gordeev and Girina, 2014). However, most of the publications concentrate on recently active volcanoes and the most recent volcanic products. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The primary goal of this paper is to summarize all of the published data on the Tolbachik volcanic massif in order to provide a clear framework for the geochronologic, petrologic, geochemical and to a lesser extent the geophysical and tectonic characteristics of the Tolbachik system established prior to the 2012-2013 eruption. The Tolbachik massif forms the southwestern part of the voluminous Klyuchevskoy volcanic group in Kamchatka. The massif includes two large stratovolcanoes, Ostry ("Sharp") Tolbachik and Plosky ("Flat") Tolbachik, and a 70 km long zone of the basaltic monogenetic cones that forms an arcuate rift-like structure running across the Plosky Tolbachik summit. The Tolbachik massif gained international attention after the 1975-1976 Great Tolbachik Fissure Eruption (GTFE), which was one of largest eruptions of the 20th century and one of six largest basaltic fissure eruptions in historical time. By the end of the GTFE, 2.2 km3 of volcanic products of variable basaltic compositions with MORB-like isotopic characteristics covered an area of > 1000 km2. During the following three decades more than 700 papers on various aspects of this eruption have been published both in national and international journals. Although the recent 2012-2013 eruption, which is the main topic of this volume, was not as long as the GTFE in duration or as large in area and volume of the erupted deposits, it brought to the surface unique volcanic material never found before. In order to understand data from new eruptions and make significant progress towards a better understanding the Tolbachik magmatic system it is important to be able to put the new results into the historic context of previous research.
    Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 10/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2015.10.016 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "km 3 , and lahars (Gorshkov and Dubik 1970; Belousov 1995). Since 1980, lava domes have been growing in the 1964 crater, occasionally producing block-and-ash and pumice flows, landslides, lahars and minor to moderate ash falls (Dvigalo 1984; Gorelchik et al. 1997; Khubunaya et al. 1995; Zharinov et al. 1995; Fedotov et al. 2004; Zharinov and Demyanchuk 2013). The most recent activity was in 2015 ( "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ~16-ka-long record of explosive eruptions from Shiveluch volcano (Kamchatka, NW Pacific) is refined using geochemical fingerprinting of tephra and radiocarbon ages. Volcanic glass from 77 prominent Holocene tephras and four Late Glacial tephra packages was analyzed by electron microprobe. Eruption ages were estimated using 113 radiocarbon dates for proximal tephra sequence. These radiocarbon dates were combined with 76 dates for regional Kamchatka marker tephra layers into a single Bayesian framework taking into account the stratigraphic ordering within and between the sites. As a result, we report ~1,700 high-quality glass analyses from Late Glacial–Holocene Shiveluch eruptions of known ages. These define the magmatic evolution of the volcano and provide a reference for correlations with distal fall deposits. Shiveluch tephras represent two major types of magmas, which have been feeding the volcano during the Late Glacial–Holocene time: Baidarny basaltic andesites and Young Shiveluch andesites. Baidarny tephras erupted mostly during the Late Glacial time (~16–12.8 ka BP) but persisted into the Holocene as subordinate admixture to the prevailing Young Shiveluch andesitic tephras (~12.7 ka BP–present). Baidarny basaltic andesite tephras have trachyandesite and trachydacite (SiO2 < 71.5 wt%) glasses. The Young Shiveluch andesite tephras have rhyolitic glasses (SiO2 > 71.5 wt%). Strongly calc-alkaline medium-K characteristics of Shiveluch volcanic glasses along with moderate Cl, CaO and low P2O5 contents permit reliable discrimination of Shiveluch tephras from the majority of other large Holocene tephras of Kamchatka. The Young Shiveluch glasses exhibit wave-like variations in SiO2 contents through time that may reflect alternating periods of high and low frequency/volume of magma supply to deep magma reservoirs beneath the volcano. The compositional variability of Shiveluch glass allows geochemical fingerprinting of individual Shiveluch tephra layers which along with age estimates facilitates their use as a dating tool in paleovolcanological, paleoseismological, paleoenvironmental and archeological studies. Electronic tables accompanying this work offer a tool for statistical correlation of unknown tephras with proximal Shiveluch units taking into account sectors of actual tephra dispersal, eruption size and expected age. Several examples illustrate the effectiveness of the new database. The data are used to assign a few previously enigmatic wide-spread tephras to particular Shiveluch eruptions. Our finding of Shiveluch tephras in sediment cores in the Bering Sea at a distance of ~600 km from the source permits re-assessment of the maximum dispersal distances for Shiveluch tephras and provides links between terrestrial and marine paleoenvironmental records.
    International Journal of Earth Sciences 07/2015; 104:1456-1482. DOI:10.1007/s00531-015-1156-4 · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The productivity , deep structure and composition of these volcanoes, including adakites found in the Shiveluch products, can be related to the complex kinematics of the Aleutian– Kamchatka junction (Yogodzinski et al., 2001; Levin et al., 2002; Park et al., 2002; Portnyagin et al., 2005; Bryant et al., 2007). Despite the longer distance between the northern group of volcanoes and the trench, the depth of the slab–mantle interface beneath Shiveluch volcano is $100 km (Gorelchik et al., 1997) indicating a change in the dip angle of the subducting slab north of Kizimen volcano. There is one more Quaternary volcanic chain in Kamchatka , almost parallel to the modern volcanic front and running from central Kamchatka (from about 54°N) to the Kamchatka isthmus (Fig. 2). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A data base for the composition and emission rates of more than 100 thermal manifestations including boiling geothermal systems and 23 volcanoes along the 1900km long Kamchatka–Kuril (KK) arc is presented. These results were used to estimate mean fluxes of volatiles from the KK arc. The fluxes from the KK arc are compared with the fluxes from the best studied Central American (CA) arc and with the compiled literature data on global fluxes. The error ranges and the OUT/IN (in)balance calculations are also discussed. The estimated fluxes of volatiles from volcanic fumaroles and the observed, normalized to the Cl content, fluxes from hydrothermal systems are very close, with the higher hydrothermal flux from Kuril Islands due to a larger number of the acidic Cl–SO4 springs on the Islands and their outflow rates. The total volcanic SO2 flux from the whole KK arc is estimated to be higher than 3000t/d. The measured S and C fluxes from hydrothermal systems are much lower than the volcanic output due to the loss of these components in the upper crust (mineral precipitation). The Cl/3He ratio is inferred to be a stable indicator of the arc setting for hydrothermal and volcanic fluids with a mean value of (2±4)×109. Comparison of the obtained volcano–hydrothermal fluxes with fluxes calculated from the erupted solid volcanic products at Kamchatka and Kurils during Holocene time reveals that the total estimated volatile output from the KK arc is compatible with the total magmatic output if the intruded to erupted ratio is close to 7, i.e. almost the same as assumed for the Central American arc. Calculated fluxes as well as the ratios for OUT/IN fluxes (volcanic+hydrothermal output/slab+mantle input) for CO2, S, H2O, Cl, N2, 4He and 3He from the KK arc normalized to the arc length are in general close to the global estimates. The fractions of CO2 and S in the total volatile output at KK arc derived directly from the mantle wedge are 18% and 16% (mole basis), respectively. Fractions of mantle derived H2O, N2 and Cl are much lower, less that 5% of their output.
    Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 02/2009; 73(4):1067-1094. DOI:10.1016/j.gca.2008.11.020 · 4.33 Impact Factor
Show more