USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · pp18011

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory: A natural laboratory for studying basaltic volcanism

Abstract

In the beginning of the 20th century, geologist Thomas A. Jaggar, Jr., argued that, to fully understand volcanic and associated hazards, the expeditionary mode of studying eruptions only after they occurred was inadequate. Instead, he fervently advocated the use of permanent observatories to record and measure volcanic phenomena—at and below the surface—before, during, and after eruptions to obtain the basic scientific information needed to protect people and property from volcanic hazards. With the crucial early help of American volcanologist Frank Alvord Perret and the Hawaiian business community, the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) was established in 1912, and Jaggar’s vision became reality. From its inception, HVO’s mission has centered on several goals: (1) measuring and documenting the seismic, eruptive, and geodetic processes of active Hawaiian volcanoes (principally Kīlauea and Mauna Loa); (2) geological mapping and dating of deposits to reconstruct volcanic histories, understand island evolution, and determine eruptive frequencies and volcanic hazards; (3) systematically collecting eruptive products, including gases, for laboratory analysis; and (4) widely disseminating observatory-acquired data and analysis, reports, and hazard warnings to the global scientific community, emergency-management authorities, news media, and the public. The long-term focus on these goals by HVO scientists, in collaboration with investigators from many other organizations, continues to fulfill Jaggar’s career-long vision of reducing risks from volcanic and earthquake hazards across the globe. This chapter summarizes HVO’s history and some of the scientific achievements made possible by this permanent observatory over the past century as it grew from a small wooden structure with only a small staff and few instruments to a modern, well-staffed, world-class facility with state-of-the-art monitoring networks that constantly track volcanic and earthquake activity. The many successes of HVO, from improving basic knowledge about basaltic volcanism to providing hands-on experience and training for hundreds of scientists and students and serving as the testing ground for new instruments and technologies, stem directly from the acquisition, integration, and analysis of multiple datasets that span many decades of observations of frequent eruptive activity. HVO’s history of the compilation, interpretation, and communication of long-term volcano monitoring and eruption data (for instance, seismic, geodetic, and petrologic-geochemical data and detailed eruption chronologies) is perhaps unparalleled in the world community of volcano observatories. The discussion and conclusions drawn in this chapter, which emphasize developments since the 75th anniversary of HVO in 1987, are general and retrospective and are intended to provide context for the more detailed, topically focused chapters of this volume.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 18.145851771694467° to 22.350075806124867° latitude; -160.68603515625° to -154.44580078125° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robert I. Tilling, James P. Kauahikaua, Steven R. Brantley, Christina A. Neal. 2014. The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory: A natural laboratory for studying basaltic volcanism. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp18011

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗