Origin of Calderas: Discriminating Between Collapses and Explosions Izumi Yokoyama

Home , Ejecta, Lake Toba, Rakata, Santorini caldera

ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 59, 6, 2016, S0650; doi:10.4401/ag-7010

Origin of calderas: discriminating between collapses and explosions Izumi Yokoyama

The Japan Academy, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan

Article history Received March 18, 2016; accepted November 13, 2016. Subject classiﬁcation: Origin of calderas, Calderas of low-gravity-anomaly type, Caldera deposits, Magma reservoirs, Collapse model, Explosion model, Composite calderas.

ABSTRACT reservoirs to collapse. On the other hand, “explosions” Origins of calderas may differ according to their subsurface structure are outward volcanic actions producing depressions, that may be characterized by high or low density deposits that may be ob- and some parts of exploded materials fall back into served as high or low gravity anomalies, respectively. In the Introduction, vents or sometimes the depressions are eroded, both the pioneering work of Fouqué [1879] on Santorini caldera is referred to resulting in formation of flat floors. in relation to definition of calderas. First, our discussion is focused on Since the early 19th century, calderas were defined four calderas that were seen forming during the period from 1815 (the as a kind of volcanic depressions having diameters larger Tambora eruption) to 1991 (the Pinatubo eruption). Coincidently, these than 2 km accompanied by flat floors. This classical def- four calderas are all low-gravity-anomaly type. Their formation processes inition of calderas was rather primitive and vague, and and subsurface structure are summarized by the existing data analyzed has been improved by the development of Earth sci- by various authors. These results are confirmed by results of drillings at ences in the last two centuries. Extensive literature ex- some other calderas. Then, caldera formation of both types is discussed: ists, particularly, in the last 20 to 30 years that allows high-gravity-anomaly-type calderas are expected to originate from sub- various approaches to classify calderas. A chief object in sidence of high-density ejecta into the summit magma reservoir. On the view of the present paper is reexaminations of the clas- calderas of this type, the genetic eruption believed to be accompanied by sification mainly from a viewpoint of geophysics. subsidences were not actually observed, and consequently three exam- In the early period, geologists relied mainly on sur- ples are mentioned only briefly. The low-gravity-anomaly-type calderas face topographies of calderas that differed from other are discussed from standpoint of both the models of collapses and ex- depressions in volcanic areas. Generally, such calderas plosions. It is also emphasized that dynamic pressure of explosions is an formed over long geological times and have altered due important factor in the caldera formation, not only volume of the ejecta. to various topographic deformations. Here, reference is To confirm the possibility that volcanic ejecta and edifices collapse into made to the pioneering work of Fouqué [1879] on San- magma reservoirs, we discuss stress propagation from a depleted reser- torini caldera in Greece is referred to. This caldera voir upward towards the Earth surface. Formation mechanisms of large formed about 80 ka BP. Around 1870 AD Fouqué vis- calderas of this type are speculated; large calderas measuring about 20 ited Santorini erupting at the middle of the caldera, and km across may develop by successive merging of component calderas over he may have been immediately impressed with the pre- a long period of times. A Kamchatka caldera under enlargement during cipitous caldera walls of about 300 m high above the the Holocene period is interpreted by successive merging of five compo- sea that was different from usual crater rims. He was nent calderas. convinced this development was consistent with “collapse model” as indicated by the steep slopes of the es- 1. Introduction carpments. Since then, the majority of geologists may The term “collapses” means collapses or subsi- have been influenced by this idea. However, the actual dences of volcanic ejecta and volcano edifices engulfed slope of the caldera wall on topographic maps is about into the magma reservoirs resulting from series of vio- 35 degrees in arc, on the average, which is different lent eruptions. Here, the positions of magma reservoirs from subjective eyesight. After a caldera forms on the are critical. If the magma reservoirs are located at shal- sea, or on the land, its walls would continue to retreat low depths, explosions can easily cause roofs of magma outward by surface foundering and erosion extending

S0650 YOKOYAMA over a lengthy period of time, repeatedly showing precipitous or gentle cliffs. Bold sea cliffs are not specific to caldera walls. The caldera walls of Santorini face to the inner sea, and hence their recession must have been very pronounced for about 80 × 103 years. From geophysical standpoint, in 1969, Yokoyama and Bonasia [1978] observed the gravity anomalies on Santorini caldera as shown in Figure 1 where the anomalies are corrected for topographies. Their distribution suggests a possibility that the caldera is composed of 2 depressions, south and north. At the south, residual low anomalies amount to (about 125 to 115) 10 mGal due to a thick deposit of low-density material conforming to the caldera boundary. If we assume a vertical fault at the western side of Thera Island, in fault-model analyses, the fault line should pass the points of the largest gradient of the anomalies, namely along the 120 mGal contour and not the shoreline in Figure 1. Later Budetta et al. [1984] carried out a more detailed survey of gravity on the same islands and they also did not detect faults at that shoreline. Heiken and McCoy [1984, fig. 6] Figure 1. Santorini caldera, Greece: the Bouguer gravity anom- do not assume any faults at the basement in their geo- alies are shown after Yokoyama and Bonasia [1978]. Solid dots show logical cross sections of the caldera walls. gravity points. H and L denote residual anomalies, high and low, re- At Santorini caldera, Fouqué [1879] insisted on spectively. the “collapse model”, in addition, mentioning the small amount of older rocks found in the pumice, but with- [1941] as mentioned above. Now, this geophysical clas- out showing any quantitative field data. This statement sification that is a very simple and significant standard caused a problem for the younger generation of volca- based on subsurface structure shall be used in the pres- nologists. Only 4 years after Fouqué’s paper, tremen- ent discussion. dous caldera-forming eruptions occurred at Krakatau. Calderas of Low-Gravity-Anomaly (LGA-type): the Verbeek [1885] and later researchers made efforts to es- caldera deposits of low density are mainly “fallbacks” timate volume of the ejecta from the 1883 Krakatau of siliceous pyroclastic ejecta and lithic breccias of the eruption to prove validity of the collapse model. As shall destructed volcano edifices, and develop low-gravity- be mentioned in Section 2(b), volume estimations of the anomalies. Williams and McBirney [1979, p. 221] ar- pyroclastic ejecta are very difficult especially at island gued against this idea explaining that gravity anomaly volcanoes and their accuracy may remain to be plus or may reveal either low or high depending on the nature minus an order of magnitude. Santorini caldera formed of the ancestral cones and basement rocks. In fact, lithic in early times, and was not observed in comparable de- breccias of disrupted volcano bodies also have low den- tail as Krakatau. With these considerations mentioned sity due to dilatational effect: the potential theory indi- above, it is difficult to easily accept Fouqué’s hypothe- cates that the low gravity anomalies over a caldera are sis of “collapse model”. local and not due to regional structure of basements. In the 20th century, Williams [1941] preferred clas- The low gravity anomalies are characteristics of explo- sification of calderas into the following four types with sive caldera-forming eruptions of LGA-type beside their proper names as Krakatau, Kilauea, Katmai and large amounts of their juvenile ejecta. Glen Coe. The first three calderas shall be referred to Calderas of High-Gravity-Anomaly (HGA-type): the later and the last is a Tertiary basaltic “cauldron” in Scot- caldera deposits of high density are usually accumula- land probably revealing a local high gravity anomaly as tion of basaltic lavas. At these calderas, eruptive activi- those in adjacent areas (cf. McQuillin and Tuson [1965]). ties are usually derived from shallow magma reservoirs, From geophysical standpoint, Yokoyama [1963] within about 5 km in depth. On calderas of HGA-type, found low or high residual gravity anomalies on several roofs of the magma reservoirs gravitationally collapse calderas and, accordingly, classified the calderas into the or subside stepwise, to fill up gaps caused by ejection two types that correspond to “Krakatau type” and “Glen or withdrawal of lavas or magmas. This will be further Coe type” according to the classification of Williams discussed in Chapter 3.

2 ORIGIN OF CALDERAS

The above classification of calderas is based on their rounding sea and, at some calderas, the ejecta surveys subsurface structure, and necessarily related to their were carried out long time after the events, and fur- formation mechanism. Hitherto, many researches have thermore, evaluations of their errors are rather prob- contributed to explain caldera formation. However, lematic (cf. Yokoyama [2015a]). The ejecta volume is many of them based their discussions or experiments closely related to evaluation of eruption magnitude (or on the “collapse model”, and uniquely, leaving the “ex- explosivity) as well as to dynamic pressure. “Volcanic plosion model” out of consideration. Even if they suc- Explosivity Index” (VEI) shall be discussed in Section 5.3. ceeded in modeling, they have to verify uniqueness of In Table 1, the largest magnitudes of earthquakes re- their solution. A rather recent book “Caldera Volcanism” lated to the events are mentioned as a possible meas- edited by Gottsmann and Martí [2008] contains 14 pa- ure of their activities. The observational conditions and pers covering various aspects of calderas and contributed the origins of the data of the four calderas are briefly by 40 active researchers. It is a pity that they scarcely summarized in the following. refer to the four historical caldera formation, Tambora, Krakatau, Novarupta and Pinatubo, which afford main (a) The 1815 Tambora eruption, Sumbawa, Indonesia data to be discussed in the present paper. This eruption was exceptionally violent but not scientifically observed. At that time, the monitoring 2. Calderas observed during their formation network was not developed. We do not have any reliable research reports of this eruption. The eruption 2.1. Calderas formed after the 19th century reached its paroxysm on April 10 and lasted until April The four calderas that were observed during for- 12, producing a caldera measuring 6 km in diameter. mation, Tambora in 1815, Krakatau in 1883, Katmai in On April 10, a strong shock was felt in the town of 1912 and Pinatubo in 1991 shall be emphasized because Surabaya 600 km away. If this was an earthquake, its discussions on old and dissected calderas tend to be magnitude (M) may have been nearly the M 7-class (cf. vague. Coincidently, these four calderas are all LGA- Yokoyama [2001]) and it should have damaged struc- type that is much more abundant in number than the tures considerably in the populated towns in Bali Island other type. Novarupta and Pinatubo calderas are not (at about 250 km distance), however, we have no par- fully proved to reveal low gravity anomalies at present ticular reports of damages. Probably the strong shock but may be assumed as LGA-type on the basis of fun- was caused by air shocks. Eruptions finally ended on nel-shaped conduit and large amounts of juvenile sili- July 15, 1815. Later in August 1819, heavy rumbling, cious ejecta. By these four particular calderas alone, of earthquakes and fire-phenomena were observed. A course we cannot treat the great variety of different for- small basaltic lava dome (Doro Afi Toi) with a small mation and structure of the calderas worldwide, and also lava flow may have formed from this activity. the post-caldera activities such as resurgent doming and The post-activity of the 1815 eruption is important so on and hence we need to refer to the other calderas for discussions of the total magma activity. Immedi- and volcanoes in the following discussion. Main fea- ately after the caldera formation and until 1819, the tures of the four calderas are shown in Table 1. magma conduit system functioned to support the faint In this table, all the items except the last one (Ejecta activities within the new caldera and after that, the vol- volume) are observed values at the time of the caldera cano has not shown any activity. This may suggest that formation and probably reliable. “Ejecta volume” is not the magma in the reservoir was almost depleted by the always unique and some estimates widely range. The caldera-forming eruption, and totally emptied by the ejecta from some calderas are distributed in the sur- 1819 activity. In other words, the conduit system was

Ejecta volume Diameter Earthquakes Max. earthq. Duration Previous (km3 DRE) + Caldera Year and depth before magnitude of climactic eruption missing ediﬁces (km) the event M eruption (km3 bulk) Tambora 1815 6 0.6~0.7 ? 3 yr 7 (?) 3 days (12~60) + 46 Krakatau 1883 5 0.25 1680 AD 99 days 5 - class 23 hr (9~19) + 8 Novarupta 1912 2 ca. 0.25 ? 7 days 7.0 14 hr 15 + 0.7 Pinatubo 1991 2.5 0.2 ca.1490 AD 71 days 5.7 9 hr 4.5 + 2.5

Table 1. Main features of the four calderas observed during and after the formation. The origins of the data are given in the paragraph of each caldera. DRE: dense rock equivalent.

3 YOKOYAMA not blocked by the caldera-forming eruptions in 1815. The new conduit to Anak Krakatau may have The main conduit may have been blocked after the branched from the main conduit at a point deeper than caldera formation, and a small basaltic lava flow prob- the above-mentioned blockage. Yokoyama [2014] in- ably leaked from depth after 4 years. terpreted formation of the parasitic conduit to have In 1980s, several parties carried out geological branched from the main conduit at a depth of about 4 studies on Tambora. Self et al. [1984] newly estimated km, based on a shear fracture model. The processes are the total volume of the pyroclastic ejecta at 50 km3 schematically shown in Figure 2. This interpretation does DRE. Recently Kandlbauer and Sparks [2014] used new not assume “caldera collapses” into the magma reservoir ash thickness data and new methods to estimate a total situated at a depth of 10 km, but the magma conduit sys- volume of the ejecta and obtained about 41 ± 4 km3 tem used for the caldera-forming eruption was probably DRE, made of 23 ± 3 km3 DRE ash fall and 18 ± 6 km3 blockaded under the caldera deposits and the magma was DRE pyroclastic flows (cf. Figure 2). supplied to the parasite through another path. According to Bemmelen [1949], the magma of the 1883 eruption (b) The 1883 Krakatau eruption, Sunda, Indonesia was hypersthene andesitic and that of Anak Krakatau This eruption was once deemed to have formed the was basaltic: the Krakatau magma has differentiated in second caldera based on earlier reports. Yokoyama [2014] the reservoir after the caldera formation. This fact indi- disagrees with this hypothesis for two reasons: the ma- cates that the magma reservoir has not been substantially rine depths shallowed toward the pre-caldera Krakatau affected by the 1883 caldera formation. Only this erup- Islands in the 1854 bathymetric chart (cf. Yokoyama tion, out of the four cases in Table 1 was not accompa- [2014], fig. 1) and the gravity values increased similarly nied with any volcanic activity during the few years after toward the Islands in the 1969 gravimetric map (ibid., the caldera was formed, but a new parasitic activity broke fig. 2). These prove that the old Krakatau Islands were out 44 years after the caldera formation. on a basement upheaval and did not indicate any traces As for volcanic ejecta, a pioneering survey of Ver- of large depressions. It is important to know whether beek [1885] was carried out soon after the eruption but calderas can form repeatedly at the same vent or not. limited narrowly to an area around Krakatau Islands On May 20, Perbuwatan, one of the parasites, and to the flow deposits. Following Verbeek, various began to erupt. On August 27, climactic eruptions began authors have estimated the total volume of magmatic at the center of the islands and finally formed a sub- ejecta at 9.0, 9.5, 12.2, 14.7 and 19.3 km3 DRE marine caldera. Coincidently, a barograph and a tide [Yokoyama 2015a]. Such diverse estimations are due to gauge in Batavia registered the eruptions. After that, in the differences in interpretations and data acquisitions September, October, and February 1884, some activi- among the various authors. This suggests that volume ties were reported. Comprehensive research reports estimates of the pyroclastic ejecta, falls and flows, are of the eruptions were published by Verbeek [1885] very difficult especially at island volcanoes influenced and Symons [1888], and in addition, we may refer to by ocean dispersion, and their accuracy may remain to “Krakatau 1883: the volcanic eruption and its effects” be plus or minus of an order of magnitude. In Figure 2, compiled by Simkin and Fiske [1983]. In such extensive a probable volume of the magma reservoir is assumed worldwide reports, it is not easy to find any facts ex- to be 19 km3 [Yokoyama 2015a]. plicitly related to “collapses”. Yokoyama [2001] discussed the earthquake activ- The eruption resulted in formation of a submarine ity related to the 1883 eruption and concluded that the caldera having rather flat bottom about 200 m below maximum magnitude of these earthquakes was in the sea level and after the event, in 1883 and 1884, some M 5-class and that explosive disruption released much weak earthquake activities were reported. We have not more energy than earthquakes. The caldera was reported received any report on volcanic activity at this subma- to have formed by collapses in the most violent explo- rine caldera. We suspect that the magma conduit sys- sion at 10:02, August 27 (local time). But this is doubt- tem connecting to Krakatau caldera has been blocked ful since the tsunami observed near Krakatau islands all at some depth. In 1927, 44 years after the caldera for- began with rises [Yokoyama 1981]: namely the tsunami mation, Anak Krakatau erupted as a parasite, interven- was generated by upward explosions, contrary to col- ing between former Danan and Perbuwatan, which lapses. Hence, the collapse model is not valid in this were both parasites of the proto-Krakatau that devel- case. The second largest explosion occurred at 10:52 of oped before the climactic eruptions. Anak Krakatau is the same day, and then we estimated that the climactic a unique example of a parasite of the calderas observed eruptions continued for about 50 minutes. Probably during formation, and its activity is still continuing as of this may not be sufficient time for volcano body to col- the 21st century. lapse into the depleted magma reservoir.

4 ORIGIN OF CALDERAS

Figure 2. Proposed models of subsurface structure of the four calderas. Tambora: probable volume of a magma reservoir is shown as 41 km3 (cf. Kandlbauer and Sparks [2014]) and its depth is not determined. Krakatau (mainly by Yokoyama [2015a]): synthesized from gravity anomalies and seismological data. Dotted part consists of caldera deposits. Vp/Vs ratios are contoured and high S-wave attenuation is marked by 3 stripes. Volume of the magma reservoir is assumed as 19 km (cf. Yokoyama [2015a]). Novarupta (mainly by Hidreth [1983]): M1 is a geological cross-section beneath the caldera, M2 is regional plexus of magmas in forms of sills, dikes and small chambers. Pinatubo (mainly by Mori et al. [1996]): magma bodies of 40~90 km3 are detected at a depth of 6~11 km. The black dots represent post-eruption earthquake foci from June 29 to August 16, 1991.

(c) The 1912 Novarupta eruption, Alaska, USA formed around 13:00, June 6 (local time), simultaneously Hildreth [1983] discussed this eruption in detail and with tephra eruptions, but not with major earthquakes. later, Hildreth and Fierstein [2012] summarized the In Table 1, the eruption of Novarupta is unique in having results of various research of the 1912 eruption for cen- generated pyroclastic flows of a medium size in volume tennial perspectives. The activity began with precursory during climactic eruptions of a medium duration and re- earthquakes felt near Novarupta on May 31. Abe [1992] sulted in formation of a caldera of a minimum diameter. studied the Katmai and Novarupta earthquakes regis- These suggest the highest ejection rate of pyroclastic ma- tered worldwide for this period: earthquakes of M 7-class terial during the caldera-forming eruption. Hildreth occurred three times in June. According to Hildreth [1983] analyzed a flaring funnel-shaped conduit of No- [1983], the seismicity does not correlate with the erup- varupta. Once he questioned himself whether Novarupta tive events, and alternatively, much of the seismic activity basin was a crater or a caldera. According to him, a seems to have been related to fitful subsidence of Katmai blocky dacitic lava dome, 380 m in diameter and about and Novarupta calderas. The explosions continued dur- 65 m in height was formed within the new caldera possi- ing June 6~9 and Novarupta caldera is assumed to have bly several months after the last major pumice eruption.

5 YOKOYAMA

The magma composition did not change drastically dur- about 9 hours, and not by collapses of volcanic material ing the period. Almost simultaneously with the No- into the magma reservoirs. Large earthquakes may re- varupta eruption, a caldera collapsed at the summit of sult from adjustments of crustal stresses induced by Katmai, 10 km east of Novarupta. Hypothetical inter- magmatic activities in a wide area. pretations on the relationship between the two events were presented by the other authors in Section 4.2. 2.2. Summary of the four calderas The similarity in volume between pyroclastic (d) The 1991 Pinatubo eruption, Luzon, Philippines ejecta and disrupted volcanic edifices and the paucity This eruption was monitored by a modern obser- of lithic fragments around the volcano are the most vational system. Newhall and Punongbayan [1996] fundamental basis for the collapse model. It is also as- compiled an interpreted research report of this erup- sumed that the latter volume compensates for the de- tion. Before the climactic eruptions, a lava dome (an- pletion of the magma reservoir caused by extrusions desitic) formed near the summit of Pinatubo during of magmatic material. Williams [1941] agreed with this June 7 to 12, 1991. This lava dome was destroyed dur- logic and stated that this was a powerful argument in ing the climactic caldera-forming eruption of June 15, favor of the collapse hypothesis. From the above data which lasted about 9 hours. This caldera measures 2.5 of the four calderas of LGA-type (Table 1), the similar- km across, almost the minimum requirement for the ity does not always hold true even if we assume ade- definition of calderas, and ejected pyroclastics of 4.5 km3 quate accuracy in the volume estimation. We must in volume is the smallest in Table 1. Thus, Pinatubo recognize that volume estimate of volcanic ejecta in the may stand on the boundary between the definitions of field is very difficult, and estimated errors ranging over craters and calderas. Though we have no reports about an order of magnitude should be expected [Yokoyama gravity surveys on Pinatubo caldera, this andesitic 2015a]. Furthermore, “caldera deposits” have been left caldera is assumed to be LGA-type because of its high out of consideration in the volume estimations. Even if explosivity and deep magmatic origin (cf. Section 4.2). the similarity holds true, this is not sufficient. We About one year after caldera formation, for about 4 should prove the mechanism by which collapsed mate- months during July - October 1992, a lava dome (hybrid rial of the volcano edifices reach magma reservoirs andesite) extruded at the same position as the 1991 through magma conduit systems. dome. Pinatubo formed lava domes before and after The diameters of calderas are not strictly propor- the caldera formation and both the domes are compo- tional to the volume of their ejecta as shown in Table sitionally similar. This means that the caldera formation 1. This may be because explosivity or eruption magni- had scarcely affected the system of magma reservoir tude depends on the explosion pressure, as well as the and conduit beneath Pinatubo mechanically. In short, mass of the ejecta. We know many calderas larger than the caldera formation was not accompanied with “col- the four calderas in diameter, and we suggest a kind of lapse of the conduit”. Generally, lava domes formed soon partial overlapping of small calderas to form larger after caldera formations should not support “collapse ones (cf. Section 5.4). model” considering that “collapses” should destroy the In Table 1, formation of the four calderas was com- magma conduit systems and stop upward transporta- pleted no later than the end of the eruptions within 3 tion of magmas. Magmas, especially viscous ones, may days (Tambora), 23 hr (Krakatau), 14 hr (Novarupta) be difficult to pass through fragmented conduits. and 9 hr (Pinatubo). If “collapse model” assumes that According to Scott et al. [1996], the climactic erup- collapses occur during violent explosions, it should be tion began at 13:42, June 15 (local time), and earth- very difficult for crushed volcanic bodies to collapse quake series of the M 5-class started at 15:39. The strong downward against the upward force of the violent ex- earthquakes M 5.5 and M 5.7 occurred successively at plosions. In fact, it cannot be absolutely certain that 18:41 and 19:11. These earthquakes took place during “collapses” occur during eruptions in all the cases. the period of decreasing explosivity. If pre-caldera volcanoes collapse downward in a short time, we may ob- 3. Formation of HGA-type calderas serve earthquakes simultaneously. Scott et al. [1996] The four calderas observed during their formation suggest that this caldera collapsed at about 16:30 by cli- coincidentally belong to the LGA-type. Here we discuss mactic eruptions. However, about this time, major earth- formation of HGA-type calderas independently of the quakes were not reported. They model the processes in above-mentioned calderas. Unfortunately we have no three stages as illustrated in three figures that are sim- historical data or direct observations on the formation ilar to the explosion model. It is probable that the of HGA-type calderas because their development caldera was formed by destructive explosions lasting would proceed gradually or stepwise over long periods.

6 ORIGIN OF CALDERAS

Therefore, we refer to ensuing events from the original (c) The 2000 eruption of Miyake volcano, Japan caldera formation. At the calderas of this type, the de- This volcano island is composed of basaltic rocks. posits of high density are usually composed of accu- On June 27, a small submarine eruption occurred at a mulation of basaltic lavas. And their eruptive activities distance of 1.2 km west of Miyake Island. By the shear are usually derived from shallow magma reservoirs lo- fracture model [Yokoyama 2015b], this parasitic vent is cated within 5 km of depth. At calderas of this type, assumed to have branched from the main vent at a roofs of the magma reservoirs would collapse gravita- depth of about 6 km beneath the center of the volcano, tionally to fill gaps caused by ejections or withdrawals determined by taking the radial distance of the para- of magma through lava flows. The following are two site vent from the center of the main vent at 5 km. The examples of similar collapses that are not caldera for- above branch point is not necessarily at the magma mation but occur as collapse stages of structure that we reservoir. On July 8, magma pressure beneath the vol- finally consider HGA-type calderas. The last (Miyake cano may have triggered volcanic earthquakes of M 2~3, volcano) is from the genetic stage of caldera formation resulting in the summit eruptions. Simultaneously, the of the same type. Dimensions of calderas of this type cylindrical summit part measuring about 900 m in di- are not related to their explosivity, and not so large be- ameter and 190 m in depth collapsed forming a sum- cause their origins are relatively shallow. mit depression. Geshi and Oikawa [2008] estimated volume of the tephra erupted as 1 × 107 m3 DRE, cor- (a) The 1924 eruption of Halemaumau crater in Kilauea responding to only 1.7 % of the total volume of the de- caldera, Hawaii pression: this means that the summit collapse of Miyake A major collapse of Kilauea caldera and related volcano in 2000 had minimal relation to the magma volcanic and tectonic events occurred in 1790. A smaller ejections, and may have been caused by internal re- collapse accompanied by low explosivity occurred at moval of magmas from the summit part. Before the Kilauea caldera in 1924 and the caldera floor was low- eruption, there was a shallow pit of about 200 m in di- ered of about 270 m. The subsidence occurred for 3 ameter at the summit, and the residual Bouguer grav- months while the multiple steam explosions occurred ity anomaly around there showed a tendency to be high for 18 days within a month. Decker [1987] pointed out [Yokoyama 2002]. From a long-ranged viewpoint, Miyake that the volume rate of magma removal was limited volcano may repeat such gravitational subsidence and and the process of caldera collapse went on over peri- grow to form a caldera of HGA-type. Similar convul- ods of a few months and interpreted the caldera-col- sions may have been repeated on the adjacent Ooshima lapses as a result of steam explosions caused by contacts volcano island, 60 km away, that has a typical HGA-type between molten lava filling the crater and the aquifer. caldera at its summit, and its magma reservoirs are sit- The explosions blew off the caldera material including uated around two depths of 5 and 10 km. molten lava and the fallback rubble deposited in the Among the three eruptions discussed in this chap- crater at the deeper level than previous one. As a result, ter, shallow summit reservoirs and basaltic magmas of the explosions caused subsidence of the caldera floor. A high density and low viscosity are common. Notably, shallow magma reservoir was an indispensable condi- collapses that occurred in response to removals of tion for the caldera collapse at Kilauea caldera. basaltic lavas or magma beneath summit craters or portions of the volcano, originate HGA-type calderas. (b) The 1968 eruption of Fernandina caldera, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador 4. Structure of LGA-type calderas The caldera measures about 6 × 4 km2. In early Calderas of this type are generally large in diame- June 1968, a small eruption occurred at the flank and was ter, and accordingly, their structure will be on larger followed by a small explosion with ash-falls at the sum- scale. In order to interpret formation mechanisms of mit caldera rim. Accompanying earthquake swarms con- LGA-type calderas, the author will discuss both surface tinued for about 10 days. On June 21, the existing caldera and subsurface structure of the calderas. And to con- bottom, with a surface area of about 8 km2, subsided firm the interpretation, drilling results at some other about 300 m [Filson et al. 1973]. There was no evidence calderas shall be referred to. In general, the geomor- of new lavas. Small eruptions and earthquake swarms phologic characteristics of calderas common to both may have triggered the gravitational subsidence. HGA- and LGA-types, are precipitous caldera walls and Hawaiian and Galapagos calderas are named flat caldera floors. For caldera walls, a pertinent discus- “basaltic lava-flow calderas” by Lipman [1997]. These sion is made in the Introduction exemplifying Santorini calderas are classified to HGA-type by their subsurface caldera. And the latter characteristic, caldera deposits structure. with flat floors are much more abundant in LGA-type

7 YOKOYAMA calderas because of their larger dimension. Hence, (b) Krakatau: since 1960s, geophysical research they shall be mentioned in the following section. has been carried out on and around Krakatau Islands. Yokoyama [1981] proposed a model of subsurface 4.1. Caldera deposits structure of this caldera mainly from gravity anom- Generally speaking, the residual gravity anomalies alies. He assumed presence of caldera infilling deposits observed on and around calderas provide us useful and tentatively estimated the depth of the reservoir at knowledge on the caldera deposits and their bound- about 5 km. Later, the bathymetries and gravimetries aries. The gravity anomalies observed on LGA-type on land and sea clarified the subsurface structure be- calderas suggest funnel-shape caldera deposits of low neath the caldera. Ranging in the time-span from 1984 density, and such structures are verified by drilling re- to 2006, temporary seismological observations were sults at some calderas. At Krakatau caldera, Yokoyama made to estimate seismic S-wave attenuation [Harjono [2014] determined the funnel-shape of caldera deposits et al. 1989] and Vp/Vs variations [Jaxybulatov et al. by gravimetries, whereas the bathymetric charts show 2011], and both properties indicated the presence of that the maximum gradient of the caldera wall at SE fluid believed to be magma probably coinciding with of Verlaten Island is about 40 degrees in arc, not very the 1883 reservoir. Yokoyama [2015a] synthesized these steep and suggests a funnel-shaped depression. The results as shown in Figure 2, where the caldera deposits northward precipice of Rakata Island is not located on are saturated in sea water producing very high Vp/Vs the caldera rim and was formed by explosive break- ratios. This supports existence and origin of caldera de- downs from the 1883 eruption. As for Novarupta, from posits at Krakatau. Also, both authors similarly located topographical observations, Hildreth [1983] inferred a magma reservoir beneath Krakatau caldera at a depth flaring funnel-shaped vent (cf. Figure 2) probably pro- of about 9 km. In 1927, Anak Krakatau erupted at the duced by explosions. caldera rim as a parasite of Krakatau volcano. The Almost all calderas have flat floors overlying caldera magma conduit for the parasite branched from the deposits, large or small in area. The deposits are usually main vent at a depth of about 4 km [Yokoyama 2014] composed of “fallbacks” of juvenile ejecta and lithic brec- and the resulting parasitic volcano has been intermit- cias, both being of low density. Flat caldera floors are tently active in the 21st century. usually one of the characteristics of calderas, distin- (c) Novarupta: Hildreth [1983] studied ash-fall and guishing them from volcanic craters. At both Novarupta ash-flow deposits from Novarupta caldera and derived and Pinatubo calderas, post-eruptive domes developed his geological interpretation of the shallow system or at their bottoms as mentioned before. We believe such magma stop (M1: rhyolitic magma) shown in Figure 2. dome formation is a possible consequence of the His caldera model assumes caldera deposits of 2 km3 calderic event. in volume, and also assumes the magmatic plumbing system (M2: andesitic and dacitic magma) beneath the 4.2. Subsurface structure of the four calderas with em- Katmai area. Ward et al. [1991] suggest the system more phasis on magma reservoirs likely to be a plexus of dikes, sills, and small chambers, Magma reservoirs are storage locations where mag- rather than one large uniform magma chamber, from mas differentiate and are extruded out causing volcanic their seismometric results. These may be located at a eruptions. Their depths and configurations are closely re- depth ≦ 10 km beneath a regional area based on the ob- lated to caldera formations. Geophysical techniques of servations made by Matumoto [1971, fig. 6]. locating magma reservoirs are expanding with time. The As for the relationship between the two calderas, results of some recent researches are shown in Figure 2 Katmai and Novarupta, Eichelberger and Izbekov which indicates that the LGA-type calderas are probably [2000] made an assumption that magma was trans- not underlain by shallow magma reservoirs. ported to the shallow chamber beneath Novarupta (a) Tambora: no geophysical discussions on sub- through planar dikes rising from depths. And Hildreth surface structure have been reported. After the 1815 and Fierstein [2000] proposed that all magmas related eruption, the volcano has not discharged significant to the Katmai-Novarupta eruption were stored under amount of magma, except from a small activity in 1819. Katmai. Later, Yokoyama [2015b] proposed a mechan- If we assume that the magma stored in the reservoir was ical interpretation applying the shear fracture model: totally ejected by the 1815 eruption, volume of the reser- the depth (D) of the pressure source is obtained from 1.2 voir is larger than that of Krakatau in proportion to vol- times r, where r denotes radial distance of the surface ume of the ejecta. We have no data related to the depth vent from Katmai (10 km). This means that the conduit of the reservoir. Only, volume of a magma reservoir as- for Novarupta branched from a depth of about 12 km sumed from the ejecta volume is shown in the figure. beneath Katmai volcano, and may have been accom-

8 ORIGIN OF CALDERAS panied with major earthquakes. Evaluation of the lows amounting to 14 and 9 mGal: the caldera base- structures through petrological data may help distin- ment is composed of partially overlapped depressions, guish the above hypotheses. about 1.5 and 1 km deep (cf. 5.4. Composite calderas). (d) Pinatubo: Mori et al. [1996] observed volcanic (c) Guayabo caldera, Costa Rica: this caldera lies be- earthquakes following the climactic eruptions of June tween young stratocones and measures 11 km in di- 15, 1991, and obtained the distribution of seismic P- ameter and forms a caldera lake. Halliman and Brown wave dissipation by means of velocity inversion. A cross [1995] carried out micro-gravity surveys and examined section of the velocity perturbations from the average stratigraphy to a depth of 2200 m at 11 boreholes velocity is shown in Figure 2 where a low velocity zone within this caldera. The caldera is LGA-type with a V- between 6~11 km in depth is inferred to be a magma shaped gravity anomaly. According to them, the grav- reservoir. This is one of the most accurate localization ity anomaly is related to the caldera fills of low density of magma reservoirs beneath active volcanoes in the and not to brecciated caldera basement, and the caldera last century, and this suggests possible variety in the was originally formed in funnel-shape, and not piston- configuration of the chambers. type subsidence, that later collapsed incrementally, and In short, the above examples show that reservoirs stratocones grew within the caldera. of silicic magmas were located at depths between 5 and In conclusion, the results of sufficiently deep drillings 10 km beneath the above-mentioned volcanoes. In the carried out at several calderas of LGA-type verify that following discussion, this will be the presupposed char- caldera deposits are underlain with basement rocks and acteristic of LGA-type calderas. the basements appear funnel-shaped. Caldera deposits are mostly composed of low density infilling deposits, 4.3. Results of drillings at some calderas of LGA-type made of pyroclastics and lithic breccias. Furthermore, To study subsurface structure of calderas, various it has been established by these studies that summit geophysical investigations are fundamentally necessary, magma reservoirs do not exist directly beneath the and to confirm their results, drillings are very useful as calderas of LGA-type. the drill cores ultimately give a definitive geologic cross section in depths. No drillings have been carried out at 5. Formation of LGA-type calderas the four calderas in question. At calderas of LGA-type, In the following, formation mechanism of LGA- deposits of low-density are mainly composed of silicic type calderas shall be interpreted on the basis of sub- pyroclastic ejecta, and partly, portions of volcano edi- surface structure as discussed in the previous section. fices. Results of drillings at some calderas may afford us First, modeling of caldera formation characteristic of specific information about the physical state and chem- studying LGA-type calderas is mentioned, and two hy- ical composition of the deposit material and may help potheses of caldera formation of the same type are sep- to analogize with the other calderas of the same type. arately discussed. Last the discussion is extended to (a) Aso caldera, Kyushu, Japan: Yokoyama [2014] pre- composite calderas. viously reported the results of drillings near the center of the caldera (symbol ⊕ in Figure 3a) that penetrated 5.1. Modeling of caldera formation the 500 m thick layer of welded pyroclastic flow de- In nature, caldera-forming eruptions of LGA-type posits [Hoshizumi et al. 1997]. These results indicate are all extraordinarily explosive accompanying tremen- that the profile of Aso caldera is funnel-shaped and its dous amounts of juvenile ejecta. At present, modeling caldera deposits are mainly composed of fallbacks, at of volcanic explosions is impracticable, and so the mod- least, at the drilling sites. eling of “collapses into magma reservoirs” cannot totally (b) La Primavera caldera, Mexico: this caldera meas- simulate the natural processes of formation of LGA- ures 13 km in diameter. Since 1980, the Comisión Fed- type calderas. eral de Electricidad of Mexico has drilled 13 geothermal Generally speaking, for physical modeling, the law wells reaching depths of 668~2986 m around the cen- of similarity between natural objectives and experi- ter of the caldera. The drill cores provide definitive mental media (usually fluid) should be provided. Oth- depth-section of the underlying deposits. The caldera erwise, the results remain only as qualitative deduction. deposits are mainly pyroclastics and partly mixed with Modeling of caldera formation, whether experimental lithified tuff layers. Beneath the caldera deposits, there or numerical, should set the initial conditions. How- are basements of compact granite at a depth of about ever, at present, the conditions are too much simplified 3 km. Yokoyama and Mena [1991] determined the struc- in many cases. ture of the caldera combining the drilling results with Fundamental conditions for modeling of caldera gravity anomalies which are composed of two relative formation are concerned in crustal structure beneath

9 YOKOYAMA volcanoes (geological properties and mechanical corresponding models, but depths and configuration of strength), and furthermore magma reservoirs (depths the magma reservoirs remain arbitrary. The LGA is de- and configurations): the latter has not been established rived from the caldera fills or fallbacks composed of ju- except for very few calderas and so we should make al- venile ejecta and lithic breccias, all being low density lowances in interpreting the results of the modeling. (cf. Section 4.1). Experimental modeling: for an example, Roche et al. As for magma reservoirs, the present author postu- [2000] carried out experimental study of caldera for- lates that they are composed of sills and dykes, similar to mation with considerations of scaling. They intended that proposed by Fisk and Kinoshita [1969] in their de- to clarify the depression of the Earth surface caused by scription of the 1967~1968 activity of Kilauea volcano, magmatic and hydrostatic pressure and adopted mod- Hawaii. A magma reservoir of similar constitution is as- els of shallow reservoirs with flat tops. sumed beneath Novarupta caldera (cf. Section 4.2). At Numerical modeling: for an example, Gregg et al. such reservoirs, magma ejection is possible while magma [2012] studied caldera-forming eruptions by viscoelas- withdrawal may be rather difficult. When a deep magma tic numerical models following the general elastic model reservoir is emptied by eruptions partly or totally, the formulation. They developed a model of magma reser- reservoir should be crushed immediately by lithostatic voirs beneath caldera volcanoes as an ellipsoid at rela- pressure and any mechanical effects should propagate tively shallow depths. Their results show two cases of outward from the reservoir as shown in the next. triggering eruptions of magma reservoirs according to Stress propagation from crushed magma reservoirs: pos- the dimensions of the reservoirs: (1) dike fractures at sibility of collapses of volcano bodies into magma reser- the magma reservoir boundary, and (2) fault fracture voirs depends on the depth of the reservoirs. When the within the crust. Alternatively, the point of their argu- reservoirs are located near the surface as in the case of ment covers eruption mechanism related to the explo- calderas of HGA-type (Chapter 3), volcanic bodies de- sion model of caldera formation. structed by explosions may collapse into the reservoirs. The initial conditions of both of the above mod- However, probable depths of magma reservoirs of sili- eling are not always similar to the actual volcanism. cic magmas are estimated at 5~10 km as shown in Sec- Modeling study of caldera formation should be first ap- tion 4.2 and so it is doubtful that destructed volcanic plied to the four calderas observed during their forma- edifices can reach the magma reservoir in opposition to tion (Chapter 2), because such modeling may need fewer the outward explosive force during caldera-forming assumptions than the prehistoric ones. eruptions. Apart from the collapse process itself, stress changes around a magma reservoir caused by magma 5.2. Hypothesis: “Collapses into a magma reservoir form discharge should be an obstructive factor to the collapse a caldera” processes. A similar discussion by Yokoyama [2015a] In order to coordinate the long disputed problem shall be briefly summarized in the following. on the formation of LGA-type calderas, we consider For the sake of simplicity, we assume crushing the two main hypotheses in the following. The first hy- force F to act concentrically at the center of a cavity pothesis is concerned with “collapses”. This mecha- that is the remnant of a reservoir, and to reach maxi- nism is consistent with that of HGA-type caldera as mum instantly. Timoshenko and Goodier [1970] dis- discussed in Chapter 3. Here its application to LGA- cussed “Force at a point in an infinite solid”, and their type calderas shall be discussed. The concept of “col- results are qualitatively applicable to the present prob- lapse model” has been determined with the assumption lem. Beginning with the Laplace’s equation, they de- that the total volume (DRE) of pyroclastic ejecta from rived the vertical stress in polar co-ordinates (the origin a caldera-forming eruption is equal to the volume of is the center of the cavity) as disrupted volcano edifices, and that lithic breccias of -32/ vo=-FEQ12VzrQ 22 + zV + volcano edifices are not found around the caldera. This z -52/ (1) has been long disputed by many researchers. Yokoyama ++381zr32Q z 2V H roQ -V [2015a] reexamined this concept for the 1883 caldera formation of Krakatau and did not agree because the Along the vertical axis, Poisson’s ratio o is canceled volume estimate of volcanic ejecta requires an allowance and the stress distribution is given as of about an order of magnitude, and we cannot prove 2 parity between the two. Lipman [1997] discussed sub- vz,r= 0 = F 4rz (2) sidence of ash-flow calderas presenting a caldera model that is characterized by rather thick and funnel-shaped Qualitatively, the stress induced by the crushing of layer of tuff fills. He interpreted many examples and a magma reservoir should decrease rapidly in inverse

10 ORIGIN OF CALDERAS proportion to z2. F in the above formulae is a concen- the other hand, the highest limit of the earthquake mag- trated force and acts simultaneously with discharge of nitude related to volcanic eruptions is M 7, as instru- magma. Magma reservoirs of LGA-type are most prob- mentally observed in the 1912 eruption of Novarupta ably located at a depth of around 5~10 km, as mentioned and the 1914 eruption of Sakurajima. Volcanological in Section 4.2. Under such conditions, the reservoir meaning of earthquakes of the M 7-class has been not should be crushed by lithostatic pressure as the magma fully interpreted, but they may be due to readjustment is discharged by eruptions, provided that magma con- of crustal stresses caused by large volcanic eruptions. duits have no influence on the above processes. Then, Empirically, they are not always indicative of caldera the stress due to the crushing shall dissipate upward and formation (cf. Table 1). instantly with almost no effect on the surface. In short, Steinberg [1974] discussed the theory of strong destructive stress caused by magma discharge from a throw-out blasts and the results in the 1956 eruption of reservoir at a sufficient depth does not normally reach Bezymianny volcano, Kamchatka, observed by Gor- the Earth surface. Now the collapse model should ex- shkov [1959], and concluded that the largest volcanic plain the mechanism of transfers of shattered materials explosion with the total energy of 5×1018 Joules, cor- from the Earth surface to a deep magma reservoir. responding to an earthquake of M9, can produce a As a result, the hypothesis “Collapses into a magma crater of 10 km in diameter maximum, on the as- reservoir form a caldera” is not agreement for formation sumption that the center of the explosion is situated at of LGA-type calderas unless their magma reservoirs are the optimum depth. The above energy is derived from located at shallow depths and the mechanism for the total energy of the explosion and ejected material. crushed volcano bodies to reach the reservoir is logi- In contrast, meteoric craters may have much larger di- cally interpreted. ameters because of their higher impact energy. In Table 1, the maximum diameter of the four calderas is 6 km 5.3. Hypothesis: “Destructive explosions form a caldera” at Tambora. This may suggest validity of Steinberg’s Originally destructivity of volcanic eruptions is estimation. Many calderas measuring more than 10 km evaluated by dynamic energy of eruption that is ex- across may have been produced by merging of adjacent pressed by mass of ejecta combined with ejection pres- and smaller component calderas. This shall be men- sure. Such dynamic energy accumulated in the Earth tioned later, in Section 5.4. crust is limited due to the elastic limit of the crust. Gigantic eruptions observed during crater formation: Explosion energy and formation of calderas: explosiv- main eruption data of the four calderas, Tambora, ity, or eruption magnitude, is defined by dynamic pres- Krakatau, Novarupta and Pinatubo, are listed in Table 1. sure of the explosions which is proportional to (mass They were all large eruptions forming calderas of di- of ejecta) × (velocity of ejecta)2. Eruption scale was ameters ranging from 2 to 6 km. Beside these calderas, first discussed by Tsuya [1955] who classified volcanic we know two examples of gigantic eruptions observed ejecta according to volume and type: the type distin- during crater formation in the 20th century: the guishes the ejecta into three categories: lava-flows, frag- Bezymianny and Mt. St Helens eruptions. The 1956 mentary ejecta only, and ejecta dominated by old event at Bezymianny volcano ejected ashes and an ag- detritus. The kind of ejecta is related to (velocity of glomerate flow of 1.8 km3 bulk with the maximum col- ejecta) and thermal energy, but their quantitative esti- umn height of about 45 km, forming a crater measuring mations are actually difficult. Later, Newhall and Self 1.5×2 km2 in dimension. Gorshkov [1959] estimated its [1982] proposed “Volcanic Explosivity Index” (VEI) that explosion pressure at 3000 atm. that is equal to lithosta- actually classifies explosivity by the order of magnitude tic pressure of about 11 km in depth. And, the 1980 of tephra volume and by column height from the ex- event at Mt. St Helens ejected 0.2 km3 DRE of tephra, plosions that is a factor of dynamic pressure, though its with the maximum column height was about 14~24 quantitative estimation is possible only for present-day km, forming a crater measuring 2 km across (cf. Lipman eruptions. Caldera-forming eruptions should be posi- and Mullineaux [1981]). These two eruptions were ex- tively characterized by extraordinarily high dynamic traordinarily explosive with high velocity of ejecta and pressure, not only large volume of the ejecta. Tsunamis exploded the upper parts, but their volume was rather and air waves caused by volcanic eruptions are typical small, and consequently resulted in formation of rela- phenomena of tremendously large dynamic pressure. tively small craters. On the other hand, according to the Caldera-forming eruptions should be evaluated by their classical definition, they may be just called calderas. If power not only by ejecta volume. these two eruptions were accompanied with large Eruption magnitude has the upper limit that is amounts of juvenile ejecta, they may have formed usually assigned to the 1815 eruption of Tambora. On proper calderas. In this respect, ejecta volume is one of

11 YOKOYAMA the important factors for caldera formation. Gigantic explosions accompanied by a large amount of pyroclastic ejecta mainly contribute to formation of calderas, larger than 2 km and maximum of 10 km in diameter. Then, it may be assumable that large calderas, such as Aso, Aira, Lake Toba and others, are formed through the amalgamation of 2~3 smaller calderas as shall be discussed in the next section. As a result, the hypothesis “Destructive explosions form a caldera” is in agreement with formation of LGA- type calderas.

5.4. Composite calderas Worldwide, there are many calderas with large diameter (about 20 km). If we adopt the explosion model, the dimensions of the resulting depressions a have an upper limit of about 10 km in diameter, as mentioned in the previous section. Calderas usually ex- pand outward by foundering and erosion of caldera walls over long periods of time. Sometimes, a new caldera would be produced adjacent to an existing caldera and the two calderas eventually may be combined into a larger caldera. This is a “composite caldera”. Therefore, our hypothesis is that calderas of large diameter (around 20 km) result from the merging of various smaller calderas. In this paper, we have called these various portions of the large caldera: “component calderas”. We may possibly distinguish “component calderas” by using gravity anomalies or topographic features. For an example, Santorini caldera shown in Figure 1 may be composed of the north and south component calderas judged by the topographies, and the south vent is active at present. In the following, b three large calderas Aso and Aira in Kyushu, Japan and Toba in Sumatra shall be mentioned as typical examples. The first two calderas are located at about 150 km Figure 3. Composite calderas in Kyushu, Japan, Aso and Aira: hatchured contours indicate the present caldera rims. ⊕ denotes apart and have no direct influence with each other in drilling sites. Thick solid lines outline the caldera formed by amal- volcanic activity. gamation of component calderas. (a) Aso: Ⓛ denotes a residual low (a) Aso caldera, Kyushu: measures 15×20 km2 in di- gravity anomaly and triangles denote active cones. (✻N), (✻M) and mension. Komazawa [1995] carried out precise gravity (✻S) are component calderas and amalgamated to form Aso caldera. (b) Aira: thin outlines in the sea area of both (✻W) and (✻E) show surveys on and around this caldera, and analyzed the flat bottoms, respectively. Triangles in (✻E) are vents: “T” is active observed Bouguer anomalies quantitatively, applying and another two are extinct. N and S on Sakurajima volcano denote frequency analyses and filtering and achieved the resid- extinct North Peak and active South Peak, respectively. ual anomalies of a shallow structure, comparable to a structure shallower than 5 km. Such gravity anomalies sume Aso caldera is composed of three component disclose the subsurface structure covered by topo- calderas, (✻N), (✻M) and (✻S). At present, we cannot ex- graphic features. Thus, the anomalies in Aso caldera actly determine the order of formation of the three are composed of five lows of residual gravity anomalies component calderas. ranging 5~10 mGal, and the small and large dimension Pyroclastic flows and falls from Aso caldera have are marked by Ⓛ in Figure 3a. The three blocks of small occurred four times since 300 ka BP, “Aso-1” (ca. 270 ka gravity anomalies in the northern part are derived from BP) to “Aso-4” (ca. 80 ka BP), and the last one was the three nested depressions, and collectively are repre- largest, amounting to about 400 km3 bulk in volume of sented by one component caldera (✻N). Thus, we as- the fall deposits. Symbol ⊕ at the southern rim of re-

12 ORIGIN OF CALDERAS gion (✻M) denotes a group of boreholes which detected the Aso-4 deposits at roughly between 1000~1500 m depth from the caldera surface, as mentioned in Sec- tion 4.3. This suggests that the caldera deposits in component caldera (✻M) are composed of considerable amount of the “fallbacks” from pyroclastics “Aso-4”. Such conditions may be found at other LGA-type calderas. At Aso caldera, if these fallbacks were found in the whole area of (✻M), their volume should amount to roughly 25 km3 in bulk. This may be not a negligible quantity and is suggestive of formation mechanism of Aso caldera. If we can locate the original vents of the four units of pyroclastic flows and falls from Aso caldera, we may better understand the sequences of formation Figure 4. Composite caldera in Lake Toba, Sumatra: distribution of this caldera. of Bouguer gravity anomalies. CC- and SS-lines denote probable The present activities are concentrated at the mid- boundaries of hypothetical component calderas. dle region (✻M). According to Sudo et al. [2006], these activities originate from a magma reservoir situated at caldera rim. The drilling reaches a depth of 810 m a depth of 5~6 km. It is not clear whether the present (b.s.l.). Almost all drilled cores are composed of tuff, condition of Aso caldera is in the process of developing welded tuff and pyroclastics and it is not clear whether activities of the component caldera (✻M), or it is in its this site is inside the caldera or not. Sakurajima volcano post-caldera activities. began its activity 22 ka BP as a parasite, probably just (b) Aira caldera, Kyushu: measures 20×20 km2 in outside of Aira caldera. North Peak of the volcano is dimension. This caldera is located at the northernmost extinct, while South Peak has been active and repeat- part of the Kagoshima bay. Gravity anomaly there edly erupted since 1955. reaches about 40 mGal, and relatively low at the cen- (c) Toba caldera, Sumatra: one of the largest calderas ter. The gravity was measured at the sea surface, and on Earth measuring roughly 20×80 km2. Its long axis the resolution was not adequate to distinguish any is parallel to the Sumatra fault (S.F. in Figure 4). The component calderas. The two component ones, (✻W) lake level is 906 m (a.s.l.) and the summit of Samosir Is- and (✻E) are derived from topographic features in Fig- land is about 1916 m (a.s.l.) at the northern part. Ac- ure 3b. Yokoyama and Ohkawa [1986] analyzed the cording to Bemmelen [1949], in Late Pleistocene, gravity anomalies observed in the caldera area and eval- siliceous magma rose beneath the present site of Lake uated the subsurface structure of the caldera as follows: Toba and paroxysmal explosions discharged roughly the caldera deposits of low density extend to a depth 2×103 km3 of pumiceous tuffs. Later the new magma of 2.5 km and are underlain with basement rocks that pushed up the floor producing resurgent domes and possibly form a funnel-shape. In the component caldera resulted in Samosir Island. Nishimura et al. [1984] car- (✻W), there is flat bottom of about 140 m (b.s.l.). In ried out gravity surveys at 332 points in this area for (✻E) region, there is also flat bottom of 200 m (b.s.l.). the period 1976~1980. Yokoyama et al. [1984] supple- Such flat floors are characteristic of calderas as men- mented the surveys at 68 points mainly at the central tioned in Section 4.1. And at the eastern part, an active part in 1982. All the results of Bouguer anomalies are vent “T” and two extinct vents exist. It is assumable that simplified and shown in Figure 4. In the figure, the region (✻E) is younger than (✻W) because “T” is the last residual gravity anomalies reach −30 ~ −85 mGal on remnant of the activities in this area. and around Lake Toba. These anomalies are corrected About 29 ka BP, during the period of the caldera for the topographies and display the structure below formation, the eruptive activity generated a volcanic the sea level. A gravity-low at the SE end of the lake succession of 4 different units composed of pumice fall suggests a component caldera of about 15 km across, layers, pyroclastic flow deposits and co-ignimbrite ash- and after the analogy of Aso and Aira calderas, another falls. The total volume of these ejecta amounts to 100 large and wide anomaly may be due to 2 component km3 DRE. Their original vents are not accurately lo- calderas probably bounded by the CC- and SS-lines. cated because the majority of the caldera is currently Gravity points are not enough in number, especially in under the sea. The drilling site (⊕ symbol in Figure 3b) the central part of the Samosir Island. In order to ad- is near the west shore of the island of Sakurajima vol- vance detailed interpretation, more dense gravity sur- cano, a post-caldera cone just outside the assumed veys are desirable.

13 YOKOYAMA

Figure 5. Ksudach caldera, Kamchatka. (a) Caldera areas of the ﬁve component calderas after Braitseva et al. [1996]. (b) Migration of the centers of component calderas. The arrow shows a synthesized migratory direction.

5.5. Calderas under enlargement model” of caldera formation proposed by Fouqué If some calderas are recognized as composite [1879] who interpreted his observation on Santorini calderas, there should be component calderas under- caldera is criticized and its validity is questioned on the going enlargement. Here, we suggest Ksudach caldera, basis of mainly subsurface structure of the caldera. In Kamchatka as a unique example of such enlargements. the present paper, calderas are first classified into two According to Braitseva et al. [1996], the caldera bound- types, LGA-type and HGA-type, according to subsur- aries at each period are shown in Figure 5a, and ① and face structure. Though the former is more abundant in ② formed earliest during Pleistocene time, and subse- number than the latter, the calderas of these two types quently, ③ in 8.8~8.7 ka BP, ④ in 6~6.1 ka BP and ⑤ in have their own characteristics in explosivity, caldera de- 4~4.3 ka BP. After formation of ⑤, Shtyubel’ cone has posits, and magma reservoirs. Since the 19th century, been active, leading to the 1907 eruption. It may be prob- four large volcanic eruptions resulting in formation of able that the center of component caldera had migrated, calderas were observed with the scientific understand- as schematically shown in Figure 5b where black dots de- ing that prevailed at that time and are considered to note the centers of component calderas. The southeast- provide reliable data. Thus, these four calderas are crit- ern part bounded by a broken line approximately shows ically compared and analyzed from geophysical view- the first caldera area ① and the solid line outlines the points. Their eruptions were all tremendously violent present caldera boundary. During these periods, the and their activities were realistically reported; however, caldera area has been roughly doubled. Volynets et al. it is difficult to settle the time of “collapses” during or [1999] applied geological, tephrochronological and geo- after the eruptions. chemical methods to reconstruct the eruptive history of Calderas of HGA-type usually originate from this caldera during the Holocene period and presented summit reservoirs with basaltic magmas at shallow sequence of five events, as shown in Figure 5a. Macias depths (≲5 km), while those of LGA-type are usually and Sheridan [1995] studied the products of the 1907 underlain by deeper reservoirs of 5~10 km depth with eruption of Shtyubel’ volcano and estimated the ejecta silicic magmas. Such differences cause activities to dif- volume at 2.4 km3 bulk, roughly a half of that for the fer in the caldera formation between the two types. 1991 eruption of Pinatubo (Table 1). At Ksudach caldera, Calderas of HGA-type have not demonstrated their for- eventually, several component calderas shall be succes- mation stages in our history. Only their ensuing activi- sively merged into a larger caldera. ties were observed on some calderas of this type: their magmas are usually basaltic and activities are not very 6. Concluding remarks violent. Hence, calderas can form mainly by gravita- In the Introduction of the present paper, transitions tional collapse or subsidence, compensating magma de- in the classification of calderas are traced, and “collapse pleted from the reservoirs during eruptions. The role

14 ORIGIN OF CALDERAS of “explosions” is rather small in such processes. This is Stauffer (eds.), Volcanism in Hawaii, USGS Prof. a caldera of HGA-type. Paper 1350, 997-1018. On the other hand, historical cases of LGA-type Eichelberger, J.C., and P.E. Izbekov (2000). Eruption of calderas studied in this work indicate that silicic magma andesite triggered by dyke injection: contrasting reservoirs are usually located at 5~10 km depth and cases at Karymsky Volcano, Kamchatka and Mt Kat- highly pressurized magmas play an important role in mai, Alaska, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 358, 1465- the caldera formation, as well as, the volume of the 1485. ejecta. Physical and chemical properties of magmas de- Filson, J., T. Simkin and L.-k. Leu (1973). Seismicity of pend on their depths and consequently may have much a caldera collapse: Galapagos Islands 1968, J. Geo- importance to the discussions of caldera formations. phys. Res., 78, 8591-8622. “Magmatic explosions” accompanied by a large amount Fisk, R.S., and W.T. Kinoshita (1969). Inflation of Ki- of pyroclastic ejecta mainly contribute to the forma- lauea Volcano prior to its 1967-1968 eruption, Sci- tion of calderas, larger than 2 km and maximum of 10 ence, 165, 341-349. km in diameter. “Collapses” contribute to deposition Fouqué, F. (1879). Santorin et ses éruptions, G. Macon, of caldera deposits or fallbacks of disrupted volcano ed- Paris, 440 p.; translated and annotated by A.R. ifices, not to compensation for gaps produced in the McBirney (1998), The Johns Hopkins University magma reservoirs. This is a caldera of LGA-type. Large Press, Baltimore, 495 p. calderas of 10~20 km in diameter would be formed by Geshi, N., and T. Oikawa (2008). Phreatomagmatic successive merging of adjacent component calderas of eruptions associated with the caldera collapse dur- LGA-type after a lengthy period of time. These are ing the Miyakejima 2000 eruption, Japan, J. Vol- composite calderas. canol. Geoth. Res., 176, 457-468. In conclusion, some calderas are formed mainly by Gorshkov, G.S. (1959). Gigantic eruption of the Vol- gravitational collapses, and others are mainly by explo- cano Bezymianny, B. Volcanol., 20, 77-109. sions. Both “collapses” and “explosions” are essential Gottsmann, J., and J. Martí, eds. (2008). Caldera vol- factors that contribute to caldera formation. Variable canism: analysis, modeling and response, Elsevier, circumstances emphasize one process or the other. Amsterdam, 487 p. Gregg, P.M., S.L. de Silva, E.B. Grosfils and J.P. Parmi- Acknowledgements. The present author owes his knowledge giani (2012). Catastrophic caldera-forming eruptions: on various aspects of many calderas to innumerable pioneering re- Thermomechanics and implications for eruption searchers and wishes to express his cordial thanks to them. The author is obliged to mention only the references directly related to the triggering and maximum caldera dimensions on present discussion. The author is grateful to Prof. V.V. Ponomareva Earth, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 241-242, 1-12. who gave him introductory knowledge of Ksudach caldera. The au- Hallinan, S., and G. Brown (1995). Incremental collapse thor expresses his heartfelt thanks to Dr. R.Y. Koyanagi who kindly and stratocone growth within a funnel-shaped contributed to improve the quality of the paper. Thanks also due to the two anonymous referees and Dr. G. De Astis for their critical com- caldera, Guayabo, Costa Rica, J. Volcanol. Geoth. ments on the early manuscript, which led to many improvements. Res., 67, 101-122. Harjono, H., M. Diament, L. Nouaili and J. Dubois References (1989). Detection of magma bodies beneath Krakatau Abe, K. (1992). Seismicity of the caldera-making erup- volcano (Indonesia) from anomalous shear waves, tion of Mount Katmai, Alaska in 1912, B. Seismol. J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 39, 335-348. Soc. Am., 82, 175-191. Heiken, G., and F.Jr. McCoy (1984). Caldera develop- Bemmelen, R.W. van (1949). Geology of Indonesia, ment during the Minoan eruption, Thira, Cyclades, The Hague: Govt. Printing Office, 707 p. Greece, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 8441-8462. Braitseva, O.A., I.V. Melekestsev, V.V. Ponomareva and Hildreth, W. (1983). The compositionally zoned erup- V.Yu. Kirianov (1996). The caldera-forming eruption tion of 1912 in the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes, of Ksudach volcano about cal. A.D. 240: the great- Katmai national park, Alaska, J. Volcanol. Geoth. est explosive event of our era in Kamchatka, Rus- Res., 18, 1-56. sia, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 70, 49-66. Hildreth, W., and J. Fierstein (2000). Katmai volcanic Budetta, G., D. Condarelli, M. Fytikas, N. Kolios, G. cluster and the great eruption of 1912, Geol. Soc. Pascale, A. Rapolla and E. Pinna (1984). Geophysical Am. B., 112, 1594-1620. prospecting on the Santorini islands, B. Volcanol., Hildreth, W., and J. Fierstein (2012). The Novarupta- 47, 447-466. Katmai eruption of 1912 - Largest eruption of the Decker, R.W. (1987). Dynamics of Hawaiian volcanoes: twentieth century: Centennial perspectives, USGS An overview, In: R.W. Decker, T.L. Wright and P.H. Prof. Paper 1791, 259 p.

15 YOKOYAMA

Hoshizumi, H., K. Watanabe, K. Sakaguchi, K. Uto, K. 105, 395-416. Ono and T. Nakamura (1997). Aso-4 pyroclastic de- Scott, W.E., R.P. Hoblitt, R.C. Torres, S. Self, Ma. M.L. posits found by a deep drilling in Aso caldera, Vol- Martinez and T.Jr. Nillos (1996). Pyroclastic flows canol. Soc. Jap. Abstract, A05 (in Japanese). of the June 15, 1991, climactic eruption of Mount Jaxybulatov, K., I. Koulakov, M.I. Seht, K. Klinge, C. Re- Pinatubo, In: C.G. Newhall and R.S. Punongbayan ichert, B. Dahren and V.R. Troll (2011). Evidence for (eds.), Fire and Mud, Eruptions and lahars of Mount high fluid/melt content beneath Krakatau volcano Pinatubo, Philippines, Univ. Washington Press, (Indonesia) from local earthquake tomography, J. 545-570. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 206, 96-105. Self, S., M.R. Rampino, M.S. Newton and J.A. Wolff Kandlbauer, J., and R.S.J. Sparks (2014). New estimates (1984). Volcanological study of the great Tambora of the 1815 Tambora eruption volume, J. Volcanol. eruption of 1815, Geology, 12, 659-663. Geoth. Res., 286, 93-100. Simkin, T., and R.S. Fiske (1983). Krakatau 1883: The Komazawa, M. (1995). Gravimetric analysis of Aso vol- volcanic eruption and its effects, Smithsonian Insti- cano and its interpretation, J. Geod. Soc. Japan, 41, tution Press, 464 p. 17-45. Steinberg, G.S. (1974). On explosive caldera formation, Lipman, P.W., and D.R. Mullineaux, eds. (1981). The Modern Geology, 5, 27-30. 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington, Sudo, Y., T. Tsutsui, M. Nakaboh, M. Yoshikawa, S. USGS Prof. Paper 1250, 844 p. Yoshikawa and H. Inoue (2006). Ground deforma- Lipman, P.W. (1997). Subsidence of ash-flow calderas: tion and magma reservoir at Aso volcano: Location relation to caldera size and magma-chamber geom- of deflation source derived from long-term geodetic etry, B. Volcanol., 59, 198-218. surveys, J. Volcanol. Soc. Jpn., 51, 291-309 (in Japan- Macias, J.L., and M.F. Sheridan (1995). Products of ese with English abstract). the 1907 eruption of Shtyubel’ Volcano, Ksudach Symons, G.I., ed. (1888). The eruption of Krakatoa, and Caldera, Kamchatka, Russia, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., subsequent phenomena. Report of the Krakatoa 107, 969-986. Committee of the Royal Society, Trübner and Co. Matumoto, T. (1971). Seismic body waves observed in London, 494 p. the vicinity of Mount Katmai, Alaska, and evidence Timoshenko, S.P., and J.N. Goodier (1970). Theory of for the existence of molten chambers, Geol. Soc. elasticity, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 567 p. Am. B., 82, 2905-2920. Tsuya, H. (1955). Geological and petrological studies McQuillin, R., and J. Tuson (1965). An interpretation of volcano Fuji, V. 5. On the 1707 eruption of vol- from gravity measurements of the sizes of some cano Fuji, B. Earthq. Res. Inst., 33, 377-383. British Tertiary granites, Proc. Geol. Soc., 1621, 59-60. Verbeek, R.D.M. (1885). Krakatau. Batavia, 495 p. Mori, J., D. Eberhart-Phillips and D.H. Harlow (1996). Volynets, O.N., V.V. Ponomareva, O.A. Braitseva, I.V. Three-dimensional velocity structure at Mount Melekestsev and Ch.H. Chen (1999). Holocene Pinatubo: Resolving magma bodies and earthquake eruptive history of Ksudach volcanic massif, South hypocenters, In: C.G. Newhall and R.S. Punong- Kamchatka: evolution of a large magmatic cham- bayan (eds.), Fire and Mud, Eruptions and lahars of ber, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 91, 23-42. Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, Univ. Washington Ward, P.L., A.M. Pitt and E. Endo (1991). Seismic evi- Press, 371-382. dence for magma in the vicinity of Mt. Katmai, Newhall, C.G., and S. Self (1982). The Volcanic Explo- Alaska, Geophys. Res. Lett., 18, 1537-1540. sivity Index (VEI): An estimate of explosive magni- Williams, H. (1941). Calderas and their origin, B. Dep. tude for historical volcanism, J. Geophys. Res., 87, Geol. Sci. Univ. Calif. Publ., 25, 239-346. 1231-1238. Williams, H., and A.R. McBirney (1979). Volcanology, Newhall, C.G., and R.S. Punongbayan, eds. (1996). Fire Freeman, Cooper & Co., San Francisco, 395 p. and Mud, Eruptions and lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Yokoyama, I. (1963). Structure of calderas and gravity Philippines, Univ. Washington Press., 1126 p. anomaly, B. Volcanol., 26, 67-72. Nishimura, S., E. Abe, J. Nishida, T. Yokoyama, A. Yokoyama, I., and V. Bonasia (1978). Gravity anomalies Dharma, P. Hehanussa and F. Hehuwat (1984). A on the Thera Islands. Thera and the Aegean world gravity survey and volcanostratigraphic interpreta- I, 147-150. tion of the Lake Toba region, North Sumatra, In- Yokoyama, I. (1981). A geophysical interpretation of donesia, Tectonophysics, 109, 253-272. the 1883 Krakatau eruption, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Roche, O., T.H. Druitt and O. Merle (2000). Experi- Res., 9, 359-378. mental study of caldera formation, J. Geophys. Res., Yokoyama, I., A. Sudradjat, H. Said and T. Maekawa

16 ORIGIN OF CALDERAS

(1984). Formation of volcanic depressions - Krakatau and Toba - Geophysical studies on volcano-tectonic depressions in Indonesia, Interim report of Grant- in-Aid for overseas research in 1982 and 1983, Hokkaido Univ., 19-24. Yokoyama, I., and S. Ohkawa (1986). The subsurface structure of the Aira caldera and its vicinity in southern Kyushu, Japan, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 30, 253-282. Yokoyama, I., and M. Mena (1991). Structure of La Pri- mavera caldera, Jalisco, Mexico, deduced from gravity anomalies and drilling results, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 47, 183-193. Yokoyama, I. (2001). The largest magnitudes of earthquakes associated with some historical volcanic eruptions, Annali di Geofisica, 44 (5/6), 1021-1029. Yokoyama, I. (2002). Classification of calderas based upon subsurface structure with relation to the 2000 Miyakejima eruption, Geophys. B. Hokkaido Univ., 65, 157-166 (in Japanese with English abstract). Yokoyama, I. (2014). Krakatau caldera deposits: revis- ited and verification by geophysical means, Annals of Geophysics, 57 (5), S0541; doi:10.4401/ag-6404. Yokoyama, I. (2015a). Eruption products of the 1883 eruption of Krakatau and their final settlement, An- nals of Geophysics, 58 (2), S0220; doi:10.4401/ag- 6529. Yokoyama, I. (2015b). Eruption pattern of parasitic volcanoes, Annals of Geophysics, 58 (3), S0327; doi:10.4401/ag-6557.

Corresponding author: Izumi Yokoyama, The Japan Academy, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan; email: [email protected].