Magma intrusion and volatile ascent beneath Norris Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park

Charles Wicks; Daniel Dzurisin; Jacob B. Lowenstern; Jerry L. Svarc

doi:10.1029/2019jb018208

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70259725

Magma intrusion and volatile ascent beneath Norris Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park

Charles Wicks·Daniel Dzurisin·Jacob B. Lowenstern·Jerry L. Svarc

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent activity has provided new insights into the causes of surface deformation in and around the Yellowstone Caldera, a topic that has been debated since the discovery of caldera floor uplift more than four decades ago. An episode of unusually rapid uplift (>15 cm/yr) centered near Norris Geyser Basin along the north caldera rim began in late 2013 and continued until a M w 4.9 earthquake on 30 March 2014; thereafter, uplift abruptly switched to subsidence. Uplift at rates of several centimeters per year resumed in 2016 and continued at least through the end of 2018. Modeling of Global Positioning System and interferometric synthetic aperture radar data suggests an evolving process of deep magma intrusion during 1996–2001 followed by volatile ascent and accumulation at shallow levels, perhaps as shallow as a few hundred meters depth. The depth of shallow volatile accumulation appears to have shallowed from the 2014 to the 2016 deformation episode, and frequent eruptions of Steamboat Geyser since March 2018 are likely a surface manifestation of this ongoing process. Hydrothermal explosion features are prominent in the Norris Geyser Basin area, and the apparent shallow nature of the volatile accumulation implies an increased risk of hydrothermal explosions.

Explore related subjects

Journal of Geophysical Research- Solid Earth Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 43.421486100190435° to 45.05846560811668° latitude; -111.12830710041113° to -108.70032858478615° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Charles Wicks, Daniel Dzurisin, Jacob B. Lowenstern, Jerry L. Svarc. 2020-02-18. Magma intrusion and volatile ascent beneath Norris Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jb018208

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2020

Plastic faulting in ice

Plastic faulting is a brittle‐like failure phenomenon exhibited by water ice and several other rock types under confinement. It is suspected to be the mechanism of deep earthquakes and extreme cases of shear localization in shallow rocks. Unlike ordinary Coulombic failure, plastic faulting is characterized by a pressure‐independent failure strength and fault plane oriented 45° to maximum principal stress. To research the question of how the instability initiates, we conducted over 50 constant‐displacement‐rate experiments on polycrystalline ice (phases Ih and II) near the brittle‐to‐ductile (B‐D) transition, at confining pressures P = 0–300 MPa, applied strain rates = 5 × 10 −5 – 7 × 10 −3 s −1 , temperatures T = 105–233 K, and mean grain sizes d = 0.25–1.18 mm. We find that (1) the width of the B‐D transition in variable space is vanishingly narrow, to the point of appearing as a crossover, (2) a plastic fault plane, once formed, is not a zone of subsequent weakness, (3) distributed ice I→II phase transformation in small amounts (<1 vol%) shows no causal relationship to subsequent failure, and (4) plastic faulting also occurs in ice II. We hypothesize that the elusive nucleating “trigger” parallels that of metals and ceramics undergoing severe plastic deformation, wherein transient local structural rearrangement occurs, in turn causing material strength to drop to a level sufficiently low, in a volume sufficiently large, that adiabatic instability is nucleated. Our results do not require and often are inconsistent with phase transformation. Plastic faulting may therefore be available to all solids undergoing severe deformation, and its appearance in so few is simply the result of insufficiently extreme conditions.

Journal of Geophysical Research- Solid Earth↗

USGS2020

Are the stress drops of small earthquakes good predictors of the stress drops of moderate-to-large earthquakes?

The stress drops of small earthquakes often exhibit spatial patterns of variability. If moderate and large earthquakes follow the same spatial patterns, the stress drops of possible future damaging earthquakes could be better predicted by considering the stress drops of nearby small events. Better stress drop predictability could reduce ground-motion uncertainty in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) and Earthquake Early Warning (EEW). I find that for an internally consistent stress drop catalog of M1.8-3.1 events in southern California, the stress drops of the bigger earthquakes are predictable from the nearby smaller events. However, this catalog only weakly spatially correlates with another catalog of M3.0-5.8 earthquakes, and is spatially uncorrelated with five other stress drop catalogs of M≥3.4 earthquakes. For southern California events M5.5-7.5, stress drops compiled from the literature are weakly spatially correlated with the stress drops of the M1.8-3.1 events, although the correlations are not statistically significant. The lack of strong spatial correlation may be due to actual differences in the controlling factors of stress drop, for example dynamic weakening in moderate-to-large earthquakes. Alternatively, a stronger spatial correlation may exist that is obscured by methodological heterogeneity and large errors in the stress drop estimates. Either way, the stress drops of small earthquakes do not appear to be good predictors of the stress drops of nearby moderate-to-large earthquakes, at least for current techniques of stress drop estimation. If these results are representative, small-earthquake stress drops are not currently useful for substantially reducing uncertainty in PSHA and EEW.

California↗

USGS2019

Separating sea and slow slip signals on the seafloor

Seafloor pressure measurements hold promise for estimating vertical displacements from transient slow slip events on submarine faults. We assess the accuracy of pressure offset estimates that evolve over days to weeks and the confidence with which they may be attributed to tectonic deformation or to the ocean water column. One common approach to resolve this ambiguity assumes water column pressures vary insignificantly over the study region and are represented by stable reference site pressures. Assessing the validity of this assumption requires independent evidence. Correlations between pressures and colocated temperatures collected during the Hikurangi Ocean Bottom Investigation of Tremor and Slow Slip experiment suggest temperatures might provide a useful independent proxy for water column pressures. We compared offsets estimated using several methods, with temperature and other proxies. The use of a temperature proxy was unsuccessful, because seafloor temperatures did not track the seasonal signal that contributes significantly to seafloor pressure changes over the slow slip event period. Regardless of the estimation method, offsets varied within a few cm around some uncertain reference level. Commonly used statistical measures are shown not to be reliable indicators of offset accuracy since offsets contribute minimally to the total variance. Offsets estimated using identical methods but with seafloor pressures simulated using a regional ocean model were larger than those derived from the data but had a similar pattern. Since the model simulates only water column processes, this suggests a significant fraction of the estimated pressure offsets are due to seasonal water column signal and are not of tectonic origin.

Journal of Geophysical Research- Solid Earth↗