USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70259258

From field station to forecast: Managing data at the Alaska Volcano Observatory

Michelle L. Coombs·Cheryl Cameron·Hannah R. Dietterich·Eleanor Boyce·Aaron Wech·Ronni Grapenthin·Kristi L. Wallace·Thomas Parker·Taryn Lopez·Scott Crass·David Fee·Matthew M. Haney·Dane M. Ketner·Matthew W. Loewen·John J. Lyons·Jenny Sha Nakai·John A. Power·Steven M Botnick·Israel Brewster·Max L. Enders·Dain Harmon·Peter J. Kelly·Michael J. Randall
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) uses multidisciplinary data to monitor and study dozens of active and potentially active volcanoes. Here, we provide an overview of internally and externally generated data types, tools and resources used in their management, and challenges faced. Data sources include the following: (1) a multiparameter (seismic, infrasound, GNSS, web cameras) ground-based monitoring network that spans 3000 km and transmits data in real time; (2) a variety of satellite-borne sensors that provide information about surface change and volcanic emissions; (3) geologic and gas field campaigns; and (4) other external data products that provide situation awareness. Each data type requires distinct acquisition, processing, storage, visualization, and archiving approaches. AVO uses a variety of externally and internally developed tools to handle individual data types as well as multidisciplinary volcanological data. A primary tool is the Geologic Database of Information on Volcanoes in Alaska (GeoDIVA), which stores detailed, searchable information on more than 140 volcanoes and over 1000 eruptions and unrest events, including images, eruption descriptions, and geologic station and sample data, metadata, and analyses. It interacts with other internal tools that store monitoring reports and other operational records. Additional data management resources used by AVO assist with alarms and alerts, state-of-health monitoring, and multiparameter visualization. Requirements for 24/7 accessibility, the ever-expanding portfolio of data, and transitioning new tools from development to operations are all challenges faced by AVO and other volcano observatories. AVO strives to meet FAIR data practices and ensure that data are available to national and international community efforts using external repositories as well as those hosted by AVO and its parent institutions.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of VolcanologyArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michelle L. Coombs, Cheryl Cameron, Hannah R. Dietterich, Eleanor Boyce, Aaron Wech, Ronni Grapenthin, Kristi L. Wallace, Thomas Parker, Taryn Lopez, Scott Crass, David Fee, Matthew M. Haney, Dane M. Ketner, Matthew W. Loewen, John J. Lyons, Jenny Sha Nakai, John A. Power, Steven M Botnick, Israel Brewster, Max L. Enders, Dain Harmon, Peter J. Kelly, Michael J. Randall. 2024-08-28. From field station to forecast: Managing data at the Alaska Volcano Observatory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-024-01766-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Geophysical insights into Kīlauea’s eruptive reawakening after its 2018 eruption and caldera collapse

A little more than two years after the destructive 2018 lower East Rift Zone eruption and summit collapse ended, renewed volcanic activity began at Kīlauea volcano, Hawaiʻi. During 2020–2025, activity at the volcano included six eruptions in the summit caldera, one in the Southwest Rift Zone, and one in the middle East Rift Zone, as well as multiple non-eruptive intrusions in all three locations. We categorize the volcano’s activity post-2018 into four phases based on eruption locations and style, as well as patterns of magma storage and migration inferred from geophysical data. In some cases, these observations illuminated parts of the volcano’s magmatic system for the first time since the advent of modern geophysical monitoring—particularly deformation datasets that include tilt, continuous GNSS, and InSAR. Analyses of these geodetic data and complementary seismic, geological, and geochemical observations provide an opportunity to explore summit and rift zone connectivity, rift-zone magma storage conditions, the variable geophysical manifestations of eruption onsets, magma-fault interactions, and other long-standing questions associated with eruptions and intrusions at Kīlauea.

Hawaii↗
USGS2026

An extensive and short-lived episode of mid-Holocene fayalite- bearing high-silica rhyolite eruptions at Mono Craters, California

Having last erupted ~ 700 years ago, the Mono Craters volcanic chain is an active system with a history of explosive and effusive high-silica rhyolite eruptions. Approximately ~ 30 lava domes and flows range from ~ 42 to ~ 0.7 ka, form a ~ 15 km curvilinear trend, and change mineralogy (biotite-, orthopyroxene-, or fayalite-bearing) and crystallinity through time. However, the eruptive chronology of this system is incompletely understood. We report new 238 U- 230 Th isochron ages for nine fayalite-bearing domes from paired zircon and allanite crystal surfaces that reveal a major shift in eruptive frequency and volume over the history of the chain, with extrusion of > 0.45 km 3 of high-silica rhyolite lava between 7.1 and 5.2 ka. This contrasts with older biotite- (~ 42–20 ka) and orthopyroxene-bearing (~ 12–9 ka) domes, each of which erupted smaller volumes over a more protracted period. Whole-rock compositions suggest these older domes tapped separate domains within a shared magmatic system because the former are higher in Sr and Ba whereas the latter are lower in SiO 2 , higher in Zr, and more enriched in light rare-earth elements. Titanomagnetite chemistry and zircon saturation temperatures also reflect changing magma compositions and conditions associated with these domes. Fayalite-bearing domes, in contrast, have uniform whole-rock and titanomagnetite compositions which support rapid extrusion of magma over an interval short enough to prevent Fe-Ti oxides from recording any changes in magmatic conditions. The youngest lavas were also produced in a short-lived episode ~ 700 years ago, showing that multivent, geologically brief eruptive episodes occur repeatedly at Mono Craters.

California↗
USGS2026

Satellite observations, plume dynamics and volcanic lightning from the 2023 eruption of Shishaldin Volcano, Alaska

The 2023 eruption of Shishaldin Volcano, Alaska, provided an unusually well-monitored example of a “dry” (non-hydromagmatic) explosive basaltic eruption with sustained, buoyant plumes, and pyroclastic density currents. Here, we examine the 13 basaltic paroxysms that occurred between July and November 2023 using geostationary satellite observations, plume modeling, and volcanic lightning detection to characterize mass eruption rates and plume dynamics. We show that seven volcanic plumes reached 10–14 km above sea level, sustained for minutes to tens of minutes. Translating plume heights into mass eruption rates, using both empirical scaling and one-dimensional plume modeling, gives peak rates of 10 4 –10 7 kg·s −1 and a total erupted volume of ~ 0.05 km 3 (dense rock equivalent) across the eruption sequence. Despite the moderate intensity of this eruption, automated satellite detection algorithms generally failed to detect volcanic ash. We attribute this persistent challenge to the fines-poor grain size distribution of the eruption. Volcanic lightning provides an additional window into the eruption dynamics. A total of 491 volcanic lightning flashes were detected, concentrated during seven of the most energetic phases. The timing of this electrical activity suggests that lightning only became detectable by the global lightning monitoring network when plumes ascended to atmospheric levels favorable for ice formation. Based on the available data, we infer that the low fine ash content of the plumes, combined with minimal water and ice, led to the overall modest rates of lightning (1–13 flashes per minute) compared to “wet” eruptions of similar intensity. These results show that combining satellite observations, plume modeling, and lightning detection provides a valuable timeline of eruptive intensity, even for “dry” basaltic eruptions in remote locations.

Alaska↗