ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITION AND CHRONOLOGY OF DOME EMPLACEMENT AT BLACK PEAK VOLCANO, ALASKA UTILIZING ASTER REMOTE SENSING DATA AND FIELD-BASED STUDIES A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE By Jennifer Nicole Adleman, B.S. Fairbanks, Alaska May 2005 iii Abstract Black Peak volcano is a —3.5lcin-diameter caldera located on the Alaska Peninsula that formed —4,600 years ago in an eruption that excavated >101cm 3 of material. The caldera floor is occupied by at least a dozen overlapping dacitic to andesitic lava domes and flows. Examination of XRF results and observations of the domes in and around the caldera reveals a range of 57-65wt% Si0 2 and variations in amphibole content. Evidence for magma mixing includes vesicular enclaves and geochemical trends that indicate involvement of a more mafic magma into a dacitic reservoir. The purpose of this study is to investigate if, and how, these differences in composition and mineralogy are detectable in satellite emissivity and TIR data (ASTER) and compare the results to ground-based field observations to discern changes in the mineralogical and chemical properties of the domes. This study incorporates the use of decorrelation-stretch image processing techniques and the deconvolution of laboratory emissivity spectra to assess the viability of discriminating variations in the lithologies observed at Black Peak volcano. Compositional results from XRD and electron microprobe analyses are comparable to those obtained through deconvolution processing. Surfaces of <10% amphibole and Si02 of 60-65wt% and those that correspond to > 10% and <6 Iwt% Si02 are distinguishable in the ASTER data. iv Table of Contents Page Signature Page Title Page ii Abstract iii Table of Contents iv List of Figures vi List of Tables viii List of Appendices ix Acknowledgements Introduction 12 Background 19 2.1 Thermal Infrared (TIR) Remote Sensing Background 19 2.2 ASTER Satellite Background 23 2.3 Previous TIR Linear Deconvolution Compositional Studies 25 Methods 28 3.1 General Field Observations and Sampling Techniques 28 3.2 Analytical methods 30 3.2.1 Geochemical analysis 30 3.2.2 X-ray Diffraction 33 3 2 3 Laboratory Emission Spectra 33 3.2.4 Linear Deconvolution 34 3.3 ASTER Remote Sensing data processing 37 3.3.1 Decorrelation Stretch 37 3.3.2 ASTER derived emissivity and temperature 44 Results 45 4.1 Field results 45 4.2 Whole Rock geochemical analyses 52 Page 4.3 Petrologic Analyses 55 4.3.1 Microprobe 55 4.3.2 X-ray Diffraction 55 4.3.3 Laboratory emissivity spectra 63 4.3.4 Linear deconvolution 72 4.4 Satellite data 73 4.4.1 Decorrelation stretching 73 4.4.2 ASTER emissivity profiles 76 Discussion 77 5.1 Age relationships 77 5.2 ASTER satellite image relationships 78 5.2.1 Comparison of ASTER satellite imagery and bulk dome 78 rock compositions 5.2.2 Comparison of ASTER and laboratory emissivity spectra 80 and petrologic data 5.2.3 Comparison of ASTER pixel color, emissivity and 81 mineralogy 5 3 Implications for ASTER assessment of volcanic regions 83 5.3.1 Correlations between ASTER and petrologic studies: 83 what worked 5.3.2 Limitations at Black Peak, Alaska 84 5.3.3 Applications along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Arc 86 Conclusion 88 References Cited 90 vi List of Figures Page Figure 1. Location map of Black Peak caldera and historically active volcanoes 13 Figure 2. ASTER spectral bands 16 Figure 3. Blackbody radiance curve 21 Figure 4. Annotated Color Infrared (CIR) aerial photo of Black Peak caldera 29 Figure 5. Example of a TIR color composite of the Black Peak caldera region 38 Figure 6. Schematic representation of the decorrelation stretch 40 Figure 7. Laboratory and ASTER emissivity spectra 43 Figure 8 Images of domes and features at Black Peak caldera 46 Figure 9. Subset of USGS Chignik (C-3) Quadrangle topographic map 48 Figure 10. Total alkali vs. silica (TAS) diagram of 2001 and 2003 samples 53 Figure 11. Harker diagrams of 2001 and 2003 Black Peak samples 54 Figure 12. Plagioclase and pyroxene ternary plots 56 Figure 13a. Section 1 summary of linear deconvolution, XRD and probe results 57 Section 2 summary of linear deconvolution, XRD and probe results 58 Section 2 summary of linear deconvolution, XRD and probe results 59 Section 2 summary of linear deconvolution, XRD and probe results 60 Section 3 summary of linear deconvolution, XRD and probe results 61 f. Additional blue pixel region samples linear deconvolution results 62 Figure 14a. Dry grass and snow laboratory emissivity 65 Section 1 laboratory and ASTER satellite emissivity spectra 66 Section 2 laboratory and ASTER satellite emissivity spectra 67 Section 2 laboratory and ASTER satellite emissivity spectra 68 Section 2 laboratory and ASTER satellite emissivity spectra 69 f Section 3 laboratory and ASTER satellite emissivity spectra 70 g. Additional blue pixel samples laboratory and ASTER emissivity 71 Figure 15. July 2000 ASTER VNIR FCC (3, 2, 1) 74 vii Page Figure 16. ASTER TIR bands 14, 12 and 10 decorrelation stretch 75 Figure Ala. Additional emissivity plots and pixel color of section 2 samples 137 Additional emissivity plot and pixel color of section 3 samples 138 Emissivity plot and pixel color samples 139 viii List of Tables Page Table 1. ASTER sensor specifics (JPL/NASA) 17 Table 2. ASTER scenes used in this study 18 Table 3. Electron microprobe settings 32 Table 4. End Member Spectral Library standards used in linear deconvolution 36 Table 5a. Section 1 Field sample descriptions 49 Section 2 Field sample descriptions 50 Section 3 Field samples, descriptions and petrology 51 Table Al. Section 1 additional field sample descriptions 98 Table A2. XRF Normalized Major Elements (weight %) 99 Table A3. XRF Unnormalized Trace Elements (ppm) 100 Table A4. ICP-MS Trace Elements (ppm) 101 Table A5. Probe analyses of pyroxene 104 Table A6. Probe analyses of amphibole 107 Table A7. Probe analyses of plagioclase 110 Table A8. X-ray diffraction analyses 119 Table A9a. Linear deconvolution results for section 1 121 Linear deconvolution results for section 2 123 Linear deconvolution results for section 3 130 d. Additional linear deconvolution results 132 Table A10. Additional analytical and pixel color results 136 ix List of Appendices Page Table A1. Section 1 additional field sample descriptions 98 Table A2. XRF Normalized Major Elements (weight %) 99 Table A3. XRF Unnormalized Trace Elements (ppm) 100 Table A4. ICP-MS Trace Elements (ppm) 101 Table AS. Probe analyses of pyroxene 104 Table A6. Probe analyses of amphibole 107 Table A7. Probe analyses of plagioclase 110 Table A8. X-ray diffraction analyses 119 Table A9a. Linear deconvolution results for section 1 121 Linear deconvolution results for section 2 123 Linear deconvolution results for section 3 130 d. Additional linear deconvolution results 132 Table A10. Additional analytical and pixel color results 136 Figure A Ia. Additional emissivity plots and pixel color of section 2 samples 137 Additional emissivity plot and pixel color of section 3 samples 138 Emissivity plot and pixel color samples 139 x Acknowledgements First and foremost I humbly thank Brian Epler, who has supported and assisted me throughout my graduate career. His daily smiles, culinary delights, ability to sort the laundry, and his support and love are tremendous contributions to my recent successes. My parents, George Adleman, Mona Zeftel and Lynn Collar have been incredibly understanding and supportive in my efforts to obtain a Masters degree. They have provided a never-ending stream of positive words, suggestions and contributions towards my goals, and I am very grateful for them. On a more academic note I thank my committee. My advisor Dr. Jessica Larsen spent numerous hours working with me in the field, in the lab and on paper to confirm my achievement in this endeavor. I am also grateful for the wisdom and advice Jess has given me in regards to Fairbanks and cabin life, dog ownership and job procurement. She is a great advisor, friend and neighbor. Dr. Michael Ramsey also spent numerous hours working with me in the field and laboratory. He has been a true wealth of knowledge in my academic pursuits. In fact it is Mike's presentation of similar research at the 2002 International Seismic-Volcanic Workshop of Kamchatkan-Aleutian Subduction Processes held in Fairbanks, Alaska that directed me down the path towards this study. His staff and graduate students Dr. Jeff Byrnes, Rachel Lee and Topher Hughes have been of great assistance to me in the preparation and analyses of my samples at their Pittsburgh facility. Dr. John Eichelberger and I have known each other for years, and it is through his positive and thoughtful leadership that I came to study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The opportunities which I have been afforded are in no uncertain terms due to Eich's ability to accomplish just about anything he puts his mind and heart to. Jess, Mike and I had a technique that needed a volcano, and Game McGimsey offered one. Tina Neal and Game McGimsey graciously offered to share their helicopter, time, field work and knowledge to a motley crew of student, petrologist and remote sensor without hesitation. I am grateful to Game for supporting my use of this technique in such an interesting petrologic region and for providing a field experience unparallel to any I have had the pleasure to be a part of Game also provided a great deal of enlightenment in xi regards to field preparations and trainings, the art of writing, and being a productive member of a terrific field crew.