4.2 Article

Frequent eruptions of Mount Rainier over the last ∼2,600 years

期刊

BULLETIN OF VOLCANOLOGY
卷 71, 期 6, 页码 595-618

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00445-008-0245-7

关键词

Mount Rainier; Eruptions; Holocene; Tephra; Glass; Lahar; Hazards

资金

  1. U.S. Department of the Interior
  2. Geological Survey
  3. Volcano Hazards Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Field, geochronologic, and geochemical evidence from proximal fine-grained tephras, and from limited exposures of Holocene lava flows and a small pyroclastic flow document ten-12 eruptions of Mount Rainier over the last 2,600 years, contrasting with previously published evidence for only 11-12 eruptions of the volcano for all of the Holocene. Except for the pumiceous subplinian C event of 2,200 cal year BP, the late-Holocene eruptions were weakly explosive, involving lava effusions and at least two block-and-ash pyroclastic flows. Eruptions were clustered from similar to 2,600 to similar to 2,200 cal year BP, an interval referred to as the Summerland eruptive period that includes the youngest lava effusion from the volcano. Thin, fine-grained tephras are the only known primary volcanic products from eruptions near 1,500 and 1,000 cal year BP, but these and earlier eruptions were penecontemporaneous with far-traveled lahars, probably created from newly erupted materials melting snow and glacial ice. The most recent magmatic eruption of Mount Rainier, documented geochemically, was the 1,000 cal year BP event. Products from a proposed eruption of Mount Rainier between AD 1820 and 1854 (X tephra of Mullineaux (US Geol Surv Bull 1326:1-83, 1974)) are redeposited C tephra, probably transported onto young moraines by snow avalanches, and do not record a nineteenth century eruption. We found no conclusive evidence for an eruption associated with the clay-rich Electron Mudflow of similar to 500 cal year BP, and though rare, non-eruptive collapse of unstable edifice flanks remains as a potential hazard from Mount Rainier.

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

4.2
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