Endogenous and Exogenous Growth of the Monogenetic Lemptégy Volcano, Chaîne Des Puys, France
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Endogenous and exogenous growth of the monogenetic Lemptégy volcano, Chaîne des Puys, France Audray Delcamp1,*, Benjamin van Wyk de Vries2, Petit Stéphane3, and Matthieu Kervyn1 1Department of Geography, Earth System Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 2Laboratoire Magmas et Volcans, UMR6524 CNRS, IRD R 163, Observatoire du Physique du Globe de Clermont, Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Université, 5 Rue Kessler, 63038 Clermont-Ferrand, France 3Véodis-3D, Hôtel d’Entreprises Pascalis, Parc Technologique de la Pardieu, 8 allée Evariste Galois, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France ABSTRACT Vespermann and Schmincke, 2000; Valentine ment analysis, looking at the spatial and tem- and Gregg, 2008). Monogenetic eruptions are poral distribution of volcanoes in monogenetic The monogenetic Lemptégy volcano in common within volcanic cone fi elds, but also fi elds (e.g., Magill et al., 2005; Bebbington and the Chaîne des Puys (Auvergne, France) was on the fl anks of large shield or stratovolcanoes Cronin, 2011; Kiyosugi et al., 2010; Le Corvec quarried from 1946 to 2007 and offers the pos- (Davidson and De Silva, 2000; Hintz and Valen- et al., 2013), while other studies have been sibility to study scoria cone architecture and tine, 2012). Many of these mafi c monogenetic focused on the mechanisms of intrusive and evolution. This volcano was originally 50–80 m volcanoes host basement or mantle xenoliths that eruptive growth of monogenetic volcanoes, spe- high, but scoria excavation has resulted in are of great interest because they provide a win- cifi cally scoria cones (e.g., Valentine and Krogh, a 50-m-deep hole. Beginning in the 1980s, dow into the inaccessible mantle and deep crust, 2006; Rapprich et al., 2007; Valentine et al., extraction was carried out with the advice as well as providing information on magma ori- 2007; Keating et al., 2008; Brenna et al., 2011; of volcanologists so that Lemptégy’s shal- gin, ascent rates, and magma-crust interactions Kiyosugi et al., 2012). low plumbing system and three-dimensional (e.g., Rudnick et al., 1993; Jannot et al., 2005; The complexity of monogenetic volcano stratigraphy have been preserved. Detailed Deegan et al., 2010; Valentine, 2012). growth can be unraveled through the study of mapping enabled key stratigraphic units to be Monogenetic volcanoes are considered to be the shallow plumbing complex and deposits. distinguished and the constructional phases to formed during a single episode of volcanic activ- Access to and study of shallow intrusive com- be reconstructed. The emplacement and evo- ity, but fi eld investigations of excavated or eroded plexes can be gained indirectly through geo- lution of the shallow plumbing system have volcanoes illustrate that they are the theater of physical and experimental methods or directly also been unraveled. The growth of this mono- complex interactions with a range of concordant on old eroded systems and in quarries (e.g., genetic scoria cone included two temporally intrusive, effusive, and explosive activity (Con- Williams et al., 1987; Malengreau et al., 1999; well-separated eruptions from closely spaced nor and Conway, 2000; Valentine et al., 2007; Annen et al., 2001; Mathieu et al., 2008; Gal- vents. The activity included Hawaiian, Strom- Martin and Németh, 2006; Keating et al., 2008; land et al., 2009; Delcamp et al., 2012; Gailler bolian and Vulcanian explosions, lava effu- Riggs and Duffi eld, 2008; Hintz and Valentine, and Lénat, 2012; Hintz and Valentine, 2012; sion, cryptodome and dome formation, partial 2012; Valentine, 2012; Kereszturi et al., 2012). Valentine, 2012). collapse, satellite vent formation, eruptive Their structures and growth appear quite simple In this study, we perform a detailed survey pauses, and intrusion emplacement with con- at fi rst sight, but closer observations reveal many of the monogenetic mafi c scoria cone of Lemp- sequent uplift. The cone shape, structure, and complexities. They can provide evidence of tégy, Auvergne, France, which offers an almost hence the local stress fi eld, plumbing system, the interplay between regional, magmatic, and complete exposure of the edifi ce deposit and and thermal state were continuously chang- volcano-tectonic processes (Riggs and Duffi eld, its underlying shallow plumbing system (Fig. ing, which in turn infl uenced the eruptive style 2008; Valentine et al., 2007; Valentine, 2012). 1A). Lemptégy volcano is part of the monoge- and location. The plumbing system morphol- In active volcanic fi elds such as the Chaîne des netic fi eld of the Chaîne des Puys, and study- ogy and microtectonic structures both record Puys, future eruptions are likely to occur in loca- ing this edifi ce will help to understand the birth local stress fi eld and magmatic fl ow direction tions where no previous cone or dome existed. and growth of the numerous scoria cones of this changes. Lemptégy volcano’s internal archi- Historic eruptions forming monogenetic vol- world-famous volcanic fi eld. The overall study tecture, stratigraphy, and evolution show how canoes or small scoria cones (e.g., Monte Nuovo, shows that Lemptégy shares similarities in complex a monogenetic volcano can be. Italy; Cerro Negro, Nicaragua; Parícutin, Mex- terms of growth and structure with other small ico; cinder cones on Tolbachik, Kamchatka) active volcanoes, such as, e.g., Cerro Negro, INTRODUCTION have shown that volcanic cones can form over Nicaragua, and in terms of historic events, Parí- anything from a few days to several years. All cutin, Mexico, thus providing insights into the Monogenetic volcanoes are the most prevail- such eruptions have had large variations in erup- internal processes of active scoria cones. The ing volcanic landform on continents and are tive style, produced diverse deposits, and have complex interactions taking place within Lemp- mostly mafi c in composition (e.g., Wood, 1980; had shifting locations of eruptive vents. tégy can occur in the summit regions of larger Studies of monogenetic volcanoes have been stratovolcanoes, and so this study also provides *Email: [email protected]. done within the framework of hazard assess- information about such larger systems. Geosphere; October 2014; v. 10; no. 5; p. 998–1019; doi:10.1130/GES01007.1; 15 fi gures; 3 tables; 1 supplemental fi le. Received 12 December 2013 ♦ Revision received 8 June 2014 ♦ Accepted 11 July 2014 ♦ Published online 18 August 2014 998 For permission to copy, contact [email protected] © 2014 Geological Society of America Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article-pdf/10/5/998/3337196/998.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 Endogenous and exogenous growth of the monogenetic Lemptégy volcano A Limagne fault simplified volcanological N France map of the Chaine Riom des Puys (modified from Boivin et al. , Puy de 2009a) Jume Puy de Chopine Puy de Coquille N45.81˚ Lemptégy Lemptégy Cler- Clermont-Ferrand mont-Fer- Key: N45.71˚ faults cones Chaîne lava flows volcanoclastites des tuffs trachytes Puys 1km sediments basement 1km E2.925˚ E3.125˚ B C N N Puy Chopine Puy des Gouttes Lemptegy before exploitation Quarry Lemptégy L1 vulcania L2 exploitation 500 m equipment Figure 1. (A) Shaded relied image and geological context of Lemptégy volcano in the Chaîne des Puys, France. (B) Lemptégy quarry and nearby Puy Chopine and Puy des Gouttes volcanoes (Google Earth). (C) Lemptégy quarry with Lemptégy 1 and Lemptégy 2 eruptive centers (photo: N. Vidal). A small inset sketch gives the structure of Lemptégy before exploitation. Geosphere, October 2014 999 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article-pdf/10/5/998/3337196/998.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 Delcamp et al. TABLE 1. MAJOR-ELEMENT ANALYSIS WITH OXIDE IN WT% Sample SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2OK2OP2O5 LOI Total Lemptégy1* 48.11 2.37 16.08 11.88 0.19 6.05 9.38 3.53 1.82 0.60 – 100 Lemptégy1† 48.41 2.38 16.18 11.95 0.19 6.09 9.44 3.55 1.83 0.60 – 100.66 Lemptégy2* 55.21 1.50 17.38 8.55 0.19 2.67 6.12 4.67 2.88 0.84 – 100 Lemptégy2† 55.57 1.51 17.48 8.40 0.21 2.75 6.24 4.64 2.93 – 100.71 S7.1 54.52 1.56 17.70 8.59 0.21 2.57 6.02 4.49 2.82 0.73 0.11 99.21 S9.7 54.57 1.54 17.41 8.49 0.21 2.58 6.01 4.52 2.88 0.73 0.08 98.95 S0.10 54.67 1.61 18.50 8.92 0.22 2.55 5.78 4.31 2.57 0.71 0.40 99.86 S4.6 54.26 1.52 17.40 8.45 0.21 2.55 5.98 4.51 2.83 0.73 0.04 98.46 S1.4 54.65 1.53 17.51 8.45 0.21 2.56 6.05 4.57 2.89 0.74 0.01 99.16 S2.11 54.83 1.54 17.60 8.51 0.21 2.56 6.01 4.58 2.89 0.74 0.06 99.48 S3.8 54.68 1.54 17.52 8.46 0.21 2.55 5.99 4.57 2.88 0.74 0.09 99.14 S6.3 55.05 1.53 17.51 8.45 0.21 2.56 6.02 4.43 2.91 0.74 0.10 99.41 R12 54.62 1.59 18.16 8.79 0.22 2.58 5.84 4.30 2.62 0.72 0.31 99.45 S8.9 54.23 1.58 18.20 8.76 0.22 2.55 5.79 4.29 2.70 0.72 0.33 99.04 Note: For reference, see Wallecan (2011).