ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2019
Magma chambers: what we can, and cannot, learn from volcano geodesy.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Architecture and dynamics of magma reservoirs.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geodetic observations on volcanoes can reveal important aspects of crustal magma chambers. The rate of decay of deformation with distance reflects the centroid depth of the chamber. The amplitude of the deformation is proportional to the product of the pressure change and volume of the reservoir. The ratio of horizontal to vertical displacement is sensitive to chamber shape: sills are efficient at generating vertical displacement, while stocks produce more horizontal deformation. Geodesy alone cannot constrain important parameters such as chamber volume or pressure; furthermore, kinematic models have no predictive power. Elastic response combined with influx proportional to pressure gradient predicts an exponentially decaying flux, leading to saw-tooth inflation cycles observed at some volcanoes. Yet many magmatic systems exhibit more complex temporal behaviour. Wall rock adjacent to magma reservoirs cannot behave fully elastically. Modern conceptual models of magma chambers also include cumulate and/or mush zones, with potentially multi-level melt lenses. A viscoelastic shell surrounding a spherical magma chamber significantly modifies the predicted time-dependent response; post-eruptive inflation can occur without recharge if the magma is sufficiently incompressible relative to the surrounding crust (Segall P. 2016 J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 121, 8501-8522). Numerical calculations confirm this behaviour for both oblate and prolate ellipsoidal chambers surrounded by viscoelastic aureoles. Interestingly, the response to a nearly instantaneous pressure drop during an explosive eruption can be non-monotonic as the rock around the chamber relaxes at different rates. Pressure-dependent recharge of a non-Newtonian magma in an elastic crust leads to an initially high rate of inflation which slows over time; behaviour that has been observed in some magmatic systems. I close by discussing future challenges in volcano geodesy. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue 'Magma reservoir architecture and dynamics'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.