Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
DOI 10.1007/s00445-011-0451-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Models of maar volcanoes, Lunar Crater (Nevada, USA)
Greg A. Valentine & Nicole L. Shufelt &
Amanda R. L. Hintz
Received: 1 July 2010 / Accepted: 20 December 2010 / Published online: 10 February 2011
# Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract Maar volcanoes are generally understood to be the
result of highly energetic, explosive interaction between
magma and water (groundwater or surface water). Two
end-member conceptual models have been proposed to
explain the dimensions (diameter, depth) of maar craters:
(1) an incremental growth model, where a crater grows
due to subsidence and ejection of debris over the course
of many explosions, and the final size is an integrated
result of multiple explosive events; (2) a model in which
the dimensions of a maar crater are the result of the
largest single explosion during the lifetime of the maar
(major-explosion dominated model). In the latter case,
the maar size can be used to estimate the energy and
depth of the largest explosion, which in turn allows
estimation of the magma mass involved. This paper
describes Lunar Crater maar (Nevada, USA) and tests the
two models as explanations for the characteristics of the
volcano, in particular the major-explosion dominated
model. This model implies magma mass and supply
rates that are unrealistic, and the tephra at the maar do
not contain key features observed in the ejecta at large
single-explosion craters. The incremental growth model
seems most suitable based upon geological evidence.
Keywords Maar . Diatreme . Phreatomagmatic . Explosion .
Crater . Monogenetic
Editorial responsibility: J. McPhie
G. A. Valentine (*) : N. L. Shufelt : A. R. L. Hintz
Department of Geology and Center for Geohazards Studies,
University at Buffalo,
411 Cooke Hall,
Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
e-mail: gav4@buffalo.edu
Introduction
Maar volcanoes are mostly “negative” landforms, charac-
terized by circular to elliptical craters that have floors below
the elevation of the surrounding landscape and subtle rims
of accumulated tephra (referred to as tephra rings; Fisher
and Schmincke 1984). Maars most commonly occur in mafic
volcanic fields, but can involve other compositions (e.g.,
Austin-Erickson et al. 2008). Most maars are monogenetic
(meaning the eruptive lifetimes of the single volcanoes
range from days to decades, after which the volcano is
extinct), although some involve multiple eruptive episodes
that produce spatially overlapping compound maars (e.g.,
Taddeucci et al. 2010). Studies of eroded maars show that
they are underlain by complex diatremes that narrow
downwards and eventually merge into feeder dikes (e.g.,
Lorenz and Kurszlaukis 2007; White 1991; Delaney and
Pollard 1981; Nemeth and White 2003; Nemeth et al. 2001).
Most maars are thought to record highly energetic
interaction between rising magma and external water (ground-
water or surface water). The interaction is a sort of molten
fuel-coolant interaction (MFCI; Wohletz and McQueen 1984;
Büttner and Zimanowski 1998; Zimanowski et al. 1995,
1997a, b) and the large crater volume and low-angle tephra
rings of maars indicate that the ratio of water and magma
was close to optimal in terms of conversion of magmatic
heat energy into mechanical energy (Zimanowski et al.
1997a, b). MFCI involves four stages: (1) premixing of
magma and aqueous coolant, (2) a trigger that causes
collapse of the vapor film that separates magma and aqueous
coolant, (3) rapid heat transfer and propagation of thermohy-
draulic detonation waves, and (4) expansion into the ambient
surroundings (Büttner and Zimanowski 1998). Although
laboratory experiments have yielded critical insights into the
processes of MFCI at the small scale, the large-scale
754
dynamics that must accompany a natural volcanic event
remain poorly understood.
Two end-member conceptual models have been used to
describe the processes that create maars, which we refer to
here as the “incremental growth” and the “major-explosion
dominated” models. The incremental growth model has
been reviewed in detail by Lorenz (1986) and Lorenz and
Kurszlaukis (2007). Magma rising through a dike has an early
phase of explosive interaction with water at relatively shallow
levels, which creates a relatively small crater by a combination
of ejection and subsidence above the explosion site. The
tephra is a mixture of shattered country rock and juvenile
clasts and forms a small ring composed of diverse pyroclastic
deposits. As MFCI progresses and uses up groundwater, the
water table drops and the locus of explosive magma-water
interaction migrates downward. The result is a progressively
deepening diatreme and a progressively widening maar crater
(Fig. 1). As the locus of MFCI deepens, the diatreme-filling
debris becomes thicker; debris involved in single explosions
may form jets through the deepening diatreme that do not
always reach the crater floor and an increasing proportion of
debris involved in explosions stays within the diatreme
instead of being erupted (e.g., Ross et al. 2008a,b). The
portion of debris that does reach the surface might vent from
different locations on the crater floor from one explosion to
the next, not always directly above the hypocenter of the
MFCI, as was observed during the eruptions of Ukinrek
maars in 1977 (Lorenz 2009). Presumably a jet of pyroclasts
related to a deep explosion might take a relatively complex
path upward due to variability in the mechanical properties
of the diatreme-filling debris that it must move through. In
addition, explosion sites can migrate upward and laterally
within a diatreme to supply eruptions from different locations
on the crater floor (e.g., Ross and White 2006). In this
model, the diameter of a maar crater reflects complex
processes of diatreme deepening, slumping of diatreme walls
Fig. 1 Lorenz’s (1986; Fig. 5) model for maar-diatreme volcano
evolution, involving incremental growth and progressive deepening of
the locus of explosive molten fuel-coolant interaction (MFCI). The
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
and earlier-deposited tephra into the growing diatreme, and
eruptions from various points within a crater that deposit
debris onto the crater floor and the surrounding tephra ring.
The outer edge of the tephra ring continues to extend, as its
inner edge (along the crater wall) is consumed by slumping
processes. It is difficult to quantify the total explosive energy
associated with a maar that is created by these processes.
A key part of the incremental growth model is that a
typical maar volcano is like any other monogenetic volcano
in its plumbing system up to the base of the diatreme, and
as such might involve a single feeder dike plus or minus
subsidiary parallel dikes (e.g., Nemeth and White 2003;
Keating et al. 2008), complex interactions of dikes with
faults (Valentine and Krogh 2006; Gaffney et al. 2007), and
the formation of shallow sills (Valentine and Krogh 2006;
Nemeth & Martin 2007; Erlund et al. 2010). During the
days to decades lifetime of a maar, there might be many
variations and pauses of magma flux as well as variations in
the hydrologic system (e.g., seasonal) that could affect
MFCI. All of this complexity is “integrated” in the final
landform, its underlying diatreme, and the tephra.
The major-explosion dominated model for maar formation
assumes that the size of a volcanic crater reflects a discrete
explosion and is roughly analogous to craters made by
chemical and nuclear explosions. In this model, easily
measured parameters such as crater diameter and ejection
distance of ballistic blocks can be used with simple scaling
functions to estimate the energy yield of an explosion (Sato
and Taniguchi 1997; Yokoo et al. 2002), and the optimum
explosion depth (MFCI hypocenter) to generate a crater of a
given dimension (Goto et al. 2001) (Fig. 2). Taddeucci et al.
(2010) applied this approach to maar volcanoes of the Alban
Hills (Italy) and compared the energy estimates with their
best estimates of the heat energy available from the magma
and the theoretical efficiency of conversion of that energy to
mechanical (explosive) energy during MFCI processes, as
root zone, comprising breccia and hypabyssal intrusions, marks the
zone of the deepest explosive interactions. Modified from Lorenz
(1986)
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
Fig. 2 Diagram showing crater
formation from a single
explosion, using energy and
depth relationships from Sato Surface
and Taniguchi (1997) and
Goto et al. (2001)
Water
table
MFCI
(energy E)
dike
well as with the estimated energy needed to fragment country
rocks observed in the tephra rings around the maars. Although
Taddeucci et al. (2010) acknowledged that each maar was
created by many explosions, they concluded that the
crater dimensions of a given maar are directly related to
the most powerful single explosion which in turn dominates
the energy released during the course of maar-forming activity
(hence our use of the term “major-explosion dominated,” or
MED, to describe this model). They therefore suggest that the
scaling law approach (Sato and Taniguchi 1997; Goto et al.
2001; Yokoo et al. 2002) can be used to estimate the
explosive yield associated with a maar, and obtained values
between 1015 and 1017 J for the Alban Hills examples.
In this paper, we describe the Lunar Crater maar (central
Nevada, USA), focusing on its dimensions, tephra, and
geological setting. We assess the viability of the two
conceptual models described above, focusing in particular
on the MED model, and discuss future research directions
that might help to integrate the two models in a quantitative
way, including issues related to magma flux, groundwater
flux, and explosion efficiency.
Geological setting and age
Lunar Crater maar is located in, and is the namesake for, the
Lunar Crater Volcanic Field (LCVF) in the Basin and Range
Province of central Nevada, USA. The LCVF is the
northernmost volcanic field in a volcanic zone that
extends between Death Valley to the southwest and the
Pancake Range to the northeast (Fig. 3a). The volcanic
field forms a north-northeast trending band, about 80 km long
and 15–20 km wide, straddling two mountain ranges (Reveille
Range and Pancake Range), and is composed of >100 mafic
volcanic centers (Fig. 3b). The LCVF spans the Pliocene and
Pleistocene (Foland and Bergman 1992); the most recent
scoria cone formed at 38±10 ka (cosmogenic exposure age;
755
Crater diameter
Tephra
volume D
Vej
Crater
depth, h
Fractures
D = 0.97 Vej0.36
6 3.05
E = 4.45 x 10 D
Shepard et al. 1995) ~13 km to the north-northeast of Lunar
Crater maar. Most of the centers are monogenetic scoria
cone volcanoes and associated lava fields, although some
long-lived (>1 million years) clusters have very closely spaced
vents and may represent a near transition to polygenetic
volcanism. A few percent of the vents in the volcanic field are
maars and tuff rings that record explosive magma-water
interaction. Magmas erupted in the volcanic field are mainly
alkali basalts, the exceptions being two trachytic lava domes
(Foland and Bergman 1992; Yogodzinski et al. 1996).
Lunar Crater maar (hereafter referred to simply as Lunar
Crater) occurs on Citadel Mountain, a structural block that
dips gently (2–2.5°) to the NNE (Fig. 4). The Citadel
Mountain block is composed of silicic tuffs and andesitic
lavas and breccias of Oligocene-Miocene age that are
capped by Plio-Pleistocene alkali basaltic lavas and scoria
cones of LCVF. Basaltic lavas were erupted from vents on
Citadel Mountain and flowed north-northeastward down the
mountain. Previous authors have noted that many vents in
LCVF are directly related to normal faults, and have
inferred, in areas where bedrock faults are not exposed,
that alignments of vents provide indirect evidence of faults.
Vent alignments do exist on Citadel Mountain; however, we
have not observed conclusive evidence supporting the
possibility that Lunar Crater itself is related to a fault.
Rather, the walls of the crater expose undisturbed Quaternary
basaltic lava lobes above an eroded ignimbrite surface (Tuff of
Buckwheat Rim, 24 Ma; Dickson 1995). Lunar Crater is near
the northern foot of Citadel Mountain. At this location the
mountain is elevated ~30 m above the valley floor to the
north, where several scoria cones, two tuff rings, and lavas
were emplaced onto a playa surface that covers the northern
part (subsurface continuation) of the Citadel Mountain block.
The age of Lunar Crater is not known. The crater postdates
the basaltic lava of Qc Cone, which has an 40Ar/39Ar age of
1.61±0.14 Ma, and is exposed in the crater wall (Dickson
1995). The tephra may overlap northward onto a lava field
756
Fig. 3 a Location of the Lunar
Crater Volcanic Field (grey)
within the Death Valley-Pancake
Range Volcanic Zone. Plio-
Pleistocene basaltic volcanic
rocks are shaded black. Modi-
fied from Crowe et al. (1986). b
Distribution of basaltic rocks
(dark grey) of the Lunar Crater
Volcanic Field in the Reveille
and Pancake Ranges and loca-
tion of Lunar Crater maar.
Dashed lines are highways.
Modified from Foland and
Bergman (1992).
37oN
N ey
36oN
0 50
a 118oW
that has been dated at 600±30 ka (K-Ar; Kargel 1987), but
that may be as young as 224±43 ka (36Cl and 10Be
cosmogenic ages; Shepard et al. 1995). However, the
abundance of eolian deposits makes it difficult to determine,
based upon surface mapping alone, the exact limits of the
tephra. The surface of the tephra ring is relatively smooth
with only minor gullying on its outward-sloping (~6°)
surface, and even on the steeper (~20°) inward-sloping part,
rills are not prominent. Desert pavement is only beginning to
develop on the surface of the tephra ring. Given that the
upper part of the tephra sequence seems to be relatively
unconsolidated, these surface characteristics would suggest
an age as young as ~50–100 ka, since eolian soils have not
matured sufficiently to have less permeable zones that could
promote local deep gullying. Note that this inference is based
upon data from the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field, about
100 km to the southwest, and the Cima Volcanic Field,
which is 200 km farther to the south (Valentine and
Harrington 2006; Wells et al. 1985). Detailed work to
establish rates of surface processes at the higher altitude
LCVF has not yet been conducted. The local preservation of
inward dipping tephra on the inner slopes of the crater
suggest that extensive post-eruptive slumping has not greatly
modified the crater. We qualitatively infer that the maar is of
late Pleistocene age.
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
Pancake
Range
Lunar Crater
Volcanic Field
Death Valley-
Pancake Range
Volcanic Zone
De
at
hV
all
Las Vegas
N
Ca eva
lifo da
rn
100 km ia
117oW 116oW
Lunar Crater
Lunar Crater has a nearly circular shape in plan (slightly
elongate in the east-west direction), and has steep crater
walls held up by competent basaltic lavas and underlying
partially welded silicic tuff. It is surrounded by a low-
profile tephra ring (Figs. 5, 6 and 7). Dimensions of the
crater, estimated crater volume and tephra volume, are
summarized in Table 1. The parameter with the largest
uncertainty is tephra volume, because it includes only the
mappable “wedge” of tephra around the crater rim, the edge
of which is difficult to define, and it excludes thin, fine-
grained distal deposits. Table 1 provides two sets of values
for crater diameter and depth. One set of values uses the top
of the Plio-Pleistocene basaltic lavas, which defined the
pre-maar ground surface, as the crater rim. The second set
uses the thickest part of the tephra ring to define the crater
rim. Using the latter, the maar is about 1,100 m in diameter
and 130 m deep.
The crater floor is currently about 100 m below the pre-
maar ground surface. The crater wall dissects two older
Quaternary basaltic centers of the LCVF. On the southern
side, the wall exposes the interior of Lunar Cone. Much of
the pyroclastic sequence associated with Lunar Cone is
covered by scree, but the basal scoria deposits, which form
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765 757

dike that flares upward and merges with a ~15-m-thick

Fig. 3 continued.
nearly flat-lying, planar beds due to their deposition before
accumulation of the cone, are exposed, as are subvertical
dikes that might relate to Lunar Cone. The other center
occurs in the northeastern crater wall which exposes a cross
section of a fissure vent system, including a narrow (<1 m)
construct of densely welded spatter and scoria.
A ~25-m-deep canyon drains into the southwestern
quadrant of the crater and feeds an alluvial fan that covers
more than half the crater floor (Fig. 5), the remainder of
which is a playa (~150×400 m) and colluvium; because of
the sediment related to the alluvial fan and the playa, as
well as colluvium from the crater walls, the crater volume
estimates in Table 1 are smaller than the original crater
volume by some unknown amount. The small canyon and
its ephemeral stream appear to be a long-lived feature of
this part of Citadel Mountain; relatively thick lavas exposed
in the canyon seem to merge with the lavas exposed in the
main crater walls, and several thinner lavas are only 10–20 m
wide. These features suggest that a paleocanyon roughly
co-located with the modern canyon served to channel
lavas that were sourced to the south (uphill on Citadel
Mountain).
The thickest accumulation of tephra is about 30 m and
thins to its mapped edge over radial distances of <300 m.
Around the northern and eastern quadrants, the deposits
form a relatively continuous radial wedge with a smooth
surface, locally draping scoria along the fissure vent system
that is dissected by the northeastern crater wall (described
above). A north-trending ephemeral stream channel incises
the western quadrant of the tephra blanket. On the southern
quadrant, the deposits thin and drape over the crest of
Lunar Cone (Fig. 7), about 1,940 m altitude, or ~100 m
higher than the top of the tephra ring around most of the
maar. It is difficult to ascertain whether the deposits were
originally continuous over the crest of Lunar Cone, but
blocks of Tuff of Buckwheat Rim up to 3 m in size occur
on the cone, indicating that some ballistic pyroclasts were
thrown to heights of at least 130 m above the pre-maar
ground surface.
Large-scale layers (bedsets one to a few meters thick) are
visible in the tephra all around the inner crater walls, but
details are obscured by a thin loose surface layer. In one
exposure of an area ~40 m long (circumferential to the
crater) by ~3 m high, at about mid level in the deposits on
the northern crater wall (Fig. 8), there are in situ deposits

Fig. 4 North-northeast to south- SSW Citadel Mountain NNE

southwest cross-section of Cita-
Qtb Lunar Crater
(m above sl)

del Mountain, based upon data 2200

Elevation

from Dickson (1995) Tbw Playa

1800 Ta
Ttu
1400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
N38°18´02´´ Distance along section (km) N38°25´03´´
W116°07´40´´ W116°02´17´´
Vertical exaggeration 2.4:1

Qtb = Plio-Pleistocene basaltic lavas and pyroclastic deposits

Contact Tbw = Tuff of Buckwheat Rim (Miocene)
Contact highly uncertain Ta = Andesite lavas and breccias
Scoria cone within ~1 km of line of section Ttu = Older tuffs, undivided (Oligocene)
758 Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765

Rim that is also exposed in the crater walls. These clast types
also dominate the mm and sub-mm components, although
some sub-mm clasts might be derived from the deeper
Miocene andesites. The only likely juvenile component is in
the form of thin basalt rims on some silicic tuff clasts. It is
estimated that the juvenile component comprises in the order
of a few percent of the tephra volume. In many beds, the lapilli
are coated with tan ash, and tan ash forms the matrix of the few
matrix-supported beds that are exposed in the upper part of the
outcrop. In some beds, the clasts are coated with a thin
(<1 mm) sugary white layer, possibly zeolite or carbonate.
Although some of the beds were probably emplaced by
proximal fallout processes, a significant proportion were
deposited from lateral (density) currents, as evidenced by:
(1) low-angle cross beds in finer grained layers, many of
which are matrix-supported (Fig. 8b); (2) near absence of
impact structures associated with (mostly dm-sized) blocks
of basalt and silicic tuff, except for the largest (m-sized)
Fig. 5 Geological map of Lunar Crater. A-A′ and B-B′ correspond to ones (Fig. 8c); and (3) the relatively poor sorting of matrix-
cross sections in Fig. 6. Symbols defined in Figs. 4 and 6. Dashed line supported beds upward in the section.
represents approximate base of the older Lunar Cone (part of the Qtb Large blocks litter the proximal part of the tephra ring in its
unit), which was partially bisected by the wall of Lunar Crater, northern, western, and, more sparsely, southern and eastern
exposing dikes
quadrants. Clasts≥8 cm in size were counted and their types
(basalt or silicic tuff) identified on the surface of the tephra
dipping both outward and inward (Fig. 8a). The deposits ring in 19 areas, each 10×10 m, at various radial distances and
are composed of numerous beds, most of which are rather locations around the crater. It is difficult to identify any trends
crudely defined by slight variations in clast size. Beds range in the relative abundances of the two block types, but in
in thickness from cm to several dm and are most commonly general, angular clasts of basalt are the dominant type, and
composed of 80–90% subangular basalt lapilli, and 10–20% silicic tuff clasts range from 0% to 25%. Blocks are most
subangular to subrounded fragments of silicic tuff in a abundant on the inward slopes of the tephra ring or very close
clast-supported framework. Most of the basalt lapilli appear to to its high point (thickest part). Patches of the eastern quadrant
be fragments of the lavas exposed in the crater wall, and silicic of the tephra ring are covered by a surface layer of highly
tuff clasts appear to be derived from the Tuff of Buckwheat vesicular grey scoria lapilli, mostly between 0.5 and 1.5 cm in

Fig. 6 West-east and north- W E

south cross-sections of Lunar Qmt Qmt Qtb
Lunar Crater
Crater along lines A-A′ and B-B′ 6000

(ft above sl)

1800
(m above sl)

Qtb
Elevation

Qaf Qac
respectively (Fig. 5). No vertical
1700 Tbw Tbw 5600
exaggeration
1600
Ta Diatreme? Ta 5200

A A´

N Lunar Cone S
Qmt
Qmt Lunar Crater Qac
1800 Qtb 6000
(ft above sl)

Qac
(m above sl)

Qac
Elevation

Qtb Qaf
1700 Tbw 5600
Tbw
1600 Diatreme? Ta 5200
Ta
B B´
Qac = Alluvium and colluvium (local playa deposits included)
Contact
Qaf = Alluvial fan deposits
Approximate contact Qmt = Maar tephra
Contact highly uncertain Qtb = Basaltic lavas and pyroclastic deposits
Approximate margin of inferred diatreme Tbw = Tuff of Buckwheat Rim (Miocene)
Ta = Andesite lavas and breccias
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
Fig. 7 Panoramic photo showing stratigraphy exposed in walls of Lunar Crater. View is from the northern rim, looking southward. Symbols as in
Figs. 4, 5 and 6; “tephra” in this figure corresponds to Qmt
size; we are uncertain whether the scoria is derived from
Lunar Crater, or if it is a remnant of a fall deposit from one of
the numerous surrounding cones, some of which postdate
Lunar Crater. It is possible that the relatively low abundance of
blocks in this quadrant is an artifact of burial by this scoria
cover. Alternatively, the uneven distribution of blocks might
reflect stronger explosions in the western half of the crater that
threw out larger blocks, compared to the eastern half.
Ballistic calculations
We used the code Eject! (Mastin 1991; available online at
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Mastin) to constrain veloc-
ities required to emplace large blocks, assuming they
followed ballistic paths. Eject! is a forward model that
solves the two-dimensional momentum equations for ballis-
tic clasts, accounting for initial momentum, the gravitational
body force, and drag between the clast and the surrounding
atmosphere. Eject! requires as input an initial clast velocity
and ejection angle. Atmospheric drag accounts for wind
(which we assumed to be zero) and the properties of air are
appropriate for the altitude. Clast properties such as shape,
Table 1 Dimensions and volumes associated with Lunar Crater maar
Parameter Value
East-west crater diameter (Dew)a Dewb 975 m
Dewe 1,130 m
North-south crater diameter (Dns)a Dnsb 885 m
Dnse 1,100 m
Depth (H)a Hb 100 m
He 130 m
a
Crater volume (Vcr) Vb 2.2×107 m3
Ve 8.5×107 m3
Tephra volume (Vej) 1×107 m3
a
Subscript b indicates parameter measured using the top of the pre-
maar basalt lavas as the crater rim, whereas e indicates the value using
the high point on the tephra ring to define crater rim (except where it
mantles an earlier scoria cone).
759
size, and mass are used to calculate both the gravitational
force and atmospheric drag. The reader is referred to Mastin
(1991) for details about the code.
Clasts for which ballistic calculations were done are listed
in Table 2. In order to determine the range of initial clast
velocities needed to emplace each clast at its observed
location, Eject! was used in an iterative mode. Although
ballistics are physically relatively simple, there are many
uncertain parameters associated with our calculations. For
example, most of the measured blocks are located on sloping
surfaces of the tephra ring; their current location might have
been affected by bouncing and rolling or sliding (during
emplacement or any time afterwards) and therefore might not
reflect the location of ballistic impact. Also, we do not know
the exact vent location for any given part of the tephra. In
order to account for this, we assigned vents just inside the
crater rim nearest each block’s location (high ejection angle),
as well as on the far side of the crater (low ejection angle).
The depth of the vent during emplacement of each block is
also not known; for the calculations, we use the base of the
nearest exposed basaltic lavas in the crater wall to determine
the vent elevation but this estimate is a minimum depth.
Finally, we cannot account for the detailed shape and density
of each clast, and of course we cannot be certain whether any
given block is intact or is a piece of a larger block that broke
up upon impact. The values in Table 2 use our best estimates
of clast volume and density; however, compared to the
uncertainties already listed, uncertainties in clast properties
have only minor influence on results. Drag with the
atmosphere depends upon clast shape, among other things.
Rather than precisely defining each clast’s shape, we used
end-member shapes that produced the least and the most
drag, respectively, in Eject!.
Table 2 summarizes our estimates of the minimum and
maximum ejection velocities for the measured blocks.
Minimum velocities correspond to ejection from the crater
floor just below the nearest part of the crater rim for each
block and to a low-drag clast shape (spherical) for the
clasts; adoption of the high-drag shape would increase the
velocities by a few percent. Maximum velocities corre-
spond to ejection from the far side of the crater and a high-
760
Fig. 8 Exposure of tephra deposits along the inner (northern) slope of
Lunar Crater. a View of outcrop area showing both outward and
inward dipping deposits. Scale is 2 m. b Details of tephra deposits.
Thin, pale grey layers are fine ash, darker layers are composed of
coarse ash and lapilli. Coarser layer between two thin fine ash beds
pinches and swells laterally. Pale clasts are silicic tuff. Width of photo
is approximately 1 m. c Ballistic block of partly welded silicic tuff.
Measuring tape is 1 m long
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
drag clast shape (rectangular cube) for the clasts. The areal
distribution of clasts, being limited in most cases to <150 m
from the crater rim, suggests that the ejection angles were
high; this in turn requires that the vents for most clasts were
on the crater floor relatively close to their final emplace-
ment locations. If blocks were ejected from the far parts of
the crater floor, at lower angles, we would expect to see
much broader distribution because slight variations in the
ejection angle strongly affect the final emplacement
distances. Thus, we favor the lower end of the range of
ejection velocities (Table 2), and suggest that the blocks
were ejected at ~50–100 m/s. This range is similar to that
estimated for other explosive eruptions involving magma-
water interaction (e.g., Self et al. 1980; Yokoo et al. 2002).
Application of the “major-explosion dominated” (MED)
model to Lunar Crater
Sato and Taniguchi (1997) summarized empirical relation-
ships between crater diameter, tephra volume, and explo-
sion energy for a number of volcanic events and compared
those data with similar data from chemical and nuclear
explosions, and from impact craters. Their data suggested
that tephra volume (Vej) and crater diameter (D) for
phreatomagmatic explosions are related by:
D ¼ 0:97Vej0:36 ð1Þ
Sato and Taniguchi (1997) stated that crater diameter is
measured as the “geometric mean diameter (D) of the area
encircled by crater rim.” It is not completely clear whether
this means that the crater rim is defined by the maximum
thickness of the tephra ring or by the hole made in the pre-
explosion ground surface; we assume that in most cases the
diameter is measured across the crater from one tephra (or
ejecta, in the case of artificial explosions and meteor
impacts) thickness maximum to the other, as is the standard
practice in the meteor impact literature (e.g., Melosh 1989).
However, to be conservative, we use the smaller diameter at
Lunar Crater that is defined by the crater made in the pre-
existing surface (Table 1), which has a mean diameter of
~930 m. We have confidence in our measurement of the
current crater diameter being close to the original crater
diameter because we infer that there has been little post-
eruptive slumping of crater walls.
We used the empirical model of Sato and Taniguchi
(1997) to predict the tephra volume that should be present
around Lunar Crater given the measured diameter. Inverting
Eq. 1 and using the crater diameter given above, the
calculated tephra volume is ~2×108 m3. The estimated
tephra volume based upon field mapping is ~1×107 m3
(calculated by treating the tephra ring as a wedge-shaped
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765 761

Table 2 Data on ballistic blocks in tephra deposits of Lunar Crater and estimated ejection velocities

Clast type Length, width, Volumea(m3) Densityb(kg/m3) Distance from nearest Minimum ejection Maximum ejection
height (cm) crater rimc (m) velocityd (m/s) velocitye (m/s)

Basalt 277, 120, 80 2.7 2,600 155 63 150

Basalt 162, 128, 118 2.4 2,500 75 54 149
Basalt 130, 125, 100 1.6 2,900 85 54 150
Basalt 170, 118, 107 2.1 2,200 90 54 151
Basalt 287, 125, 106 3.8 2,800 125 58 198
Basalt 216, 129, 116 3.2 2,500 90 53 147
Basalt 170, 110, 120 2.2 2,900 340 81 171
Basalt 220, 150, 110 3.6 2,900 310 80 165
Silicic tuff 290, 160, 90 4.2 2,400 105 54 192
Basalt 190, 120, 110 2.5 2,600 105 54 194
Basalt 250, 250, 230 14.4 2,600 95 54 195
Silicic tuff 330, 220, 200 14.5 2,400 90 53 195
a
Estimated by multiplying the three dimensions in preceding column.
b
Estimate accounts for visual estimate of vesicularity using a dense basalt density of 2,900 kg/m3 .
c
Measured from the nearest basal exposure of basaltic lavas in crater wall, approximating nearest point in crater bottom.
d
Assumes lowest drag coefficient (spherical shape) and ejection just inside the nearest crater rim.
e
Assumes highest drag coefficient (cubic shape) and ejection just inside the farthest crater rim.

annulus around the crater; Table 1), which is only 5% of the
model volume. Even allowing for some erosion of the
tephra, and under representation of the fine-grained
deposits that might have originally been associated with
it, it appears that the empirical model significantly over-
estimates the tephra volume. This discrepency is much
larger if the diameter value in Eq. 1 is based upon the
thickest part of the tephra ring, rather than the pre-existing
ground surface, which nearly doubles the predicted tephra
volume. An additional problem is that the predicted tephra
volume is significantly larger than the current volume of the
crater. However, the crater has been partially filled by
sediments transported along the canyon that drains into it,
so the current volume is less than the original crater
volume.
Sato and Taniguchi’s (1997) empirical data suggested the
following relationship between crater diameter (in meters)
and explosion energy (E, in Joules):
E ¼ 4:45  106 D3:05 :
Equation 2 gives energy values of 5×1015 J and 9×
15
10 J for Lunar Crater, depending upon whether the crater
rim is defined by the pre-eruptive ground surface or by the
tephra ring, respectively. These values correspond to 1.2
and 2.2 megatons (Mt) of TNT; for comparison, Kieffer
(1981) estimated the highly destructive 18 May 1980 lateral
blast at Mount St. Helens to have released 7 Mt in kinetic
energy. The energy release estimates for Lunar Crater are
similar to values obtained by Taddeucci et al. (2010) for the
similar-sized Prata Porci maar (Alban Hills, Italy), using the
same and additional approaches. Taddeucci et al. (2010)
concluded that this result applied to the largest single
explosion responsible for the maar dimensions, and that
although there would have been many other explosions,
their energies would have made small additions to that of
the largest explosion within the context of the MED model.
Goto et al. (2001) studied the dependence of crater size
on explosion depth for subsurface explosions. They scaled
their experimental results for diameter and depth with the
cube root of the explosion energy because a given
explosion energy will damage a specific volume of material
(measured with dimensions of length cubed). They found
that the scaled crater diameter for a given explosion energy
is optimized when the scaled depth is ~4×10−3 m/J1/3. If
Lunar Crater was produced by a major explosion with the
energies calculated above at optimum depth, the explosion
depth would have been ~685 m or ~830 m (depending upon
which measure of crater diameter is used to estimate the
ð2Þ energy). Interestingly, if we assume that the original
explosion crater formed an inverted cone to these depths,
and that the volume of the inverted cone was ejected, there
should be between 1.6×108 and 2.7×108 m3 of tephra. In
reality, a single-explosion crater would probably be partly
re-filled with fallback debris. Although some circular
reasoning is involved, it is interesting that this range of
predicted tephra volume is similar to Vej =2×108 m3 that
was predicted by Eq. 1. However, it seems unlikely that
there was ever a crater to these depths, which would imply
a ~500–700-m-thick fill of fallback debris and post-eruptive
762
sediment to produce the current crater depth. Such a deep
explosion would, in this model, be expected to eject some
wall rock debris from the explosion site. The stratigraphy
beneath this part of Citadel Mountain is poorly constrained
at best; it is possible that some of the pyroclasts are
Miocene andesites which might be present at depths of
685–830 m, but those rocks are also likely to be present at
much shallower depths (~180 m) below the pre-maar
ground surface.
The MED conceptual model allows the use of energy
estimates based upon crater dimensions to calculate the
magma mass (M) or volume involved in the explosions,
because the explosion energy is derived from conversion of
ascending magma’s heat energy. Assuming 100% efficiency
in this conversion process and neglecting latent heat
(rapidly quenched basaltic magma forms glass with little
or no crystallization),
M ¼ Eðcp ΔT Þ1 ð3Þ
where cp is the heat capacity of the magma (assumed to be
1,200 J kg−1K−1, a typical value for basaltic magma; Gregg
and Zimbleman 2000), and ΔT is the temperature change of
the magma during the MFCI (which we assume to be
~1,000 K). The energies calculated from Eq. 2 would have
involved 4×109 to 7.5×109 kg, or about 1.4×106 to 2.6×
106 m3 of magma (using a magma density of 2,900 kg/m3).
If the field-based tephra volume of 1×107 m3 is taken to
represent the original tephra volume and if it is assumed to
have been generated at the site of MFCI, we would expect
that on average the deposits would contain ~14–26% (by
volume) juvenile components. If we assume that the field-
based volume is only half of the original tephra, then we
would expect ~7–13% juvenile components. We have only
one good exposure of the tephra, which cannot be assumed
to be representative of the entire volume, but it does not
contain this amount of juvenile components. On the other
hand, if the empirical model of Sato and Taniguchi (1997)
provides a truer estimate of tephra volume, then we might
expect to see only a few percent of juvenile components in
the deposits, which is consistent with the one outcrop.
However, the proportion of juvenile components in the
tephra ring may not accurately reflect the volume of magma
involved in the MFCI. An excellent example is described in
White (1991), where the deeper parts of diatremes (presum-
ably close to the site of MFCI) in the Hopi Buttes volcanic
field have higher proportions of juvenile components than the
shallower parts; thus much of the magma that was involved in
MFCI might not have erupted. This inference is consistent
with the fact that most of the observed tephra at Lunar Crater
is derived from shallow levels (probably less than ~180 m);
explosions might have been deeper seated, but most of the
rock and magma involved in explosions probably was not
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
erupted and instead transferred kinetic energy into overlying
strata and blew them out.
More important to the estimate of involved magma volume
is the fact that MFCI are not 100% efficient in converting heat
to kinetic energy, instead, efficiency is typically between ~1
and 10% (Büttner and Zimanowski 1998). This efficiency
requires 10–100 times the magma volume estimated above
to produce a single explosion powerful enough to make
Lunar Crater, essentially implying that the tephra and the
volcanic component of crater/diatreme fill (i.e., not the post-
eruptive sediments) should be dominated by juvenile
pyroclasts, which is almost certainly not the case.
Discussion
Although we do not doubt that single crater-producing
explosions follow the empirical relationships of Eqs. 1 and
2 (Sato and Taniguchi 1997; Goto et al. 2001), several
factors seem to argue against the efficacy of the MED
model for Lunar Crater: (1) the mismatch between mapped
tephra volume and that predicted by the MED empirical
relationships; (2) the unlikely predicted depths of MFCI
explosion; (3) the unreasonably high predicted volume of
magma needed to generate the required energy. There are
additional difficulties in applying the MED model to Lunar
Crater.
Magma supply rate There are few estimates of the
magma volume fluxes associated with volcanoes in
continental basaltic fields such as LCVF. Valentine and
Perry (2006) used Walker’s (1973) simple relationship
between lava flow length and effusion rate to estimate
volume fluxes of ~1–100 m3/s for volcanoes in the
Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field. Most lavas in the
LCVF are 1–10 km long, implying similar volume fluxes.
If we assume that 1–100 m3/s is a reasonable range for
magma flux into the shallow plumbing of the maar, it would
take a minimum of ~104 s, and more likely between 105 and
107 s (~1–100 days) to deliver the volume of magma to the
site of magma-water interaction that is required to generate
the explosion energy needed to make Lunar Crater by the
MED model, providing the efficiency of the energy conver-
sion was 100%. Efficiencies of 1–10% require one to two
orders of magnitude longer time to deliver the magma. This
duration practically rules out the MED model, because
MFCI requires that the volume (mass) of molten fuel
(magma) is present at one time to undergo premixing prior
to thermohydraulic explosion. The required magma volume
could have accumulated in a shallow sill and then mixed
with water very quickly. Shallow sills do occur beneath some
monogenetic volcanoes (e.g., Valentine and Krogh 2006;
Nemeth and Martin 2007; Erlund et al. 2010), but a
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
significant sill would have to be emplaced first with little
premixing, followed by efficient premixing of the entire
volume. On the other hand, incremental growth of a crater
and underlying diatreme is plausible within the context of
a monogenetic system, where each one of the multiple
smaller explosions would involve smaller volumes of
magma as it is delivered into the shallow plumbing at
realistic rates.
Water source Zimanowski et al. (1997a, b) showed experi-
mentally that the most energetic explosions occur when the
ratio of water mass to magma mass is between 0.03 and 0.04.
For Lunar Crater, the mass of magma required to provide the
initial heat energy for an explosion is 4–7.5×109 kg for 100%
efficiency, and 4–7.5×1010 kg for 10% efficiency. The latter
range is more realistic, and requires the water mass to be
1.2–3×109 kg, or the volume to be 1.2–3×106 m3. As with
magma, this water mass (or volume) would have to be
available in the immediate area of an impending MFCI, so
that it could premix with magma. Water for phreatomagmatic
explosions can come from surface or subsurface sources. We
consider surface water to be unlikely because Lunar Crater
occurs on the north-sloping Citadel Mountain, above the
level of current playas in surrounding valley floors. Also, the
MED model implies explosion depths of several hundred
meters, which is inconsistent with MFCI involving surface
water.
It is possible that the required water was stored in silicic
tuffs and/or andesite lavas and breccias at the appropriate
depths (Fig. 4). If these rocks have porosities between 20
and 40%, the volume range estimated above could be held
within aquifer volumes of 3×106 and 1.5×107 m3 (length
scales of ~150–250 m). Given high matrix and/or fracture
permeabilities in the aquifer rocks, it might be possible for
the required volume of water to move toward the locus of
MFCI relatively quickly based upon these lengths, but there
are at least two problems. First, in order for the MED model
to work, the MFCI-driven explosion must occur in a central
volume of previously-emplaced magma. Groundwater
moving toward a magma body involves converging flow,
which requires the magma body to act as a sink for the
water mass. However, premixing of water with the magma
body results in increases in the volume and/or pressure,
because premixing of magma and liquid water that precedes
an explosion occurs under relatively confined conditions at
depth, before a pathway is opened to the surface. Pressure
increases would act against groundwater flow toward the
magma body. Second, as a dike ascends through an aquifer,
high groundwater pore pressures are generated adjacent to
the dike due to elastic wall rock deformation and heat
(Elsworth and Voight 1992; Delaney 1982). This high pore
pressure results in water flow away from a dike soon after
intrusion.
763
Little is known about the hydrogeology of the area around
Lunar Crater including the current depth of the water table.
Furthermore, the water table depth at the time of eruption
during the Pleistocene might have been substantially different
from today. The small canyon that empties into the south-
western part of the crater appears to have been a long-lived
topographic feature, predating the maar. In the semi-arid to
arid western USA, such canyons are often accompanied by
small, perched aquifers just below the stream channels. It is
feasible that such a perched reservoir could have contained the
volume of water needed to supply an MED-style eruption, but
the other problems remain.
Characteristics of tephra deposits Taddeucci et al. (2010)
recognized that a typical maar produces many small
explosions. However, the major explosion responsible for
the crater dimensions in the MED model would be expected
to produce features that share some characteristics with
other types of craters that are produced by large
explosions. Craters created by single explosions of the
size that would be required to form Lunar Crater by the
MED mechanism normally have two key features
(Melosh 1989) that we do not see at the maar. The first key
feature consists of overturned country rock stratigraphy in the
ejecta rim. Meteor Crater (Arizona, USA) is an impact crater
created by a single explosion and occurs in sandstone and
limestone that are similarly competent to the basalt and tuff
that comprise the upper >100 m at Lunar Crater. Meteor Crater
is only slightly larger (~1.1 km diameter, ~160 m deep) than
Lunar Crater and is estimated to have been produced by an
explosion energy 5–10 times larger than that estimated for
Lunar Crater using Eq. 2. The wall rock stratigraphy
around the rim of Meteor Crater is overturned. Although
exposures of the inner slopes of the tephra ring are poor
at Lunar Crater, there is no evidence of inverted
stratigraphy, which in this case, would be represented
by overturned basaltic lavas. A second characteristic of
large, single-explosion craters is the hummocky surface
of the proximal ejecta, due to the presence of large,
variably shattered chunks of the wall rock. At Lunar
Crater, the surface of the tephra ring is smooth.
As described above, the limited exposure of the internal
structure of tephra at Lunar Crater shows that it is
composed of many beds of ash, lapilli, and blocks. Single
beds and bed sets, particularly where capped by an ash-rich
layer, probably represent single explosions. Bedding and
sorting characteristics of the deposits suggest they were
emplaced dominantly by pyroclastic density currents, with
lesser components of ballistic and fallout emplacement.
These types of deposits also occur at large craters made by
single explosions (such as nuclear explosions or meteorite
impacts), but the presence of numerous beds in the very
proximal part of the deposits, and the evidence for some
764
pauses or weakening in explosive output, are not consistent
with the MED model. Rather, the deposits probably record
hundreds of separate explosive events.
Finally, ballistic analysis, although poorly constrained in
some ways, yields results that are more consistent with
multiple small explosions located at various points around
the crater floor rather than single large explosion that would
have distributed blocks more evenly around the crater and
to greater distances.
Unsolved questions
Taddeucci et al. (2010) found that the MED model
produced explosion energies that were consistent with
those estimated by other methods such as the fragmentation
of country rock, erupted mass of magma, and thermohy-
draulic energy relationships. Most of the estimates carry
large uncertainties typically spanning an order of magnitude
in possible outcomes. Based upon their calculations, they
argued against subsidence during successive deep explo-
sions (a key aspect of the incremental growth model). It is
not clear whether the dimensions of a maar produced by
incremental growth would be the same, in terms of total
mechanical energy released, as a maar generated by a MED
mechanism. A given explosion energy should affect a
specific volume of country rock (fragmenting, fracturing,
and compacting), so it would seem that a series of
approximately co-located, small explosions would not
produce the same result as a single large explosion of the
same cumulative energy. However, if the MFCI hypocenter
progressively deepens during the eruptive lifetime of a maar
volcano, that migration provides a mechanism by which a
series of small explosions can affect a large volume of
country rock, compared to the same series of explosions
occurring at one location. Note that explosions might
migrate laterally and upward as well as downward, as
magma flux and water supply into a developing diatreme
varies (Ross and White 2006). Experiments would elucidate
the surface and subsurface structures of craters from single
explosions compared to those created by series of smaller,
stationary or migrating explosions.
Other aspects of subsurface explosive magma-water
interaction require further research. For example, we do not
have a good understanding of how MFCI works within the
context of the shallow (<500 m depth) plumbing of a
monogenetic volcano (e.g., Keating et al. 2008). Relevant
problems relate to natural length and time scales, geological
setting, confining rock properties and pressures, and interac-
tion under the imposed shear of multiphase magma flowing
through dikes. Previous experiments (e.g., Zimanowski et al.
1997a, b) identified the magma:water mass ratios that result
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
in different explosion efficiencies under relatively static
conditions and for a specific range of scales, but the
relationship between magma and water fluxes within the
volcanic plumbing and the geohydrological setting of a
volcano has yet to be quantified (e.g., Starostin et al. 2005).
Also unresolved is the effect of dike emplacement on the
movement of groundwater.
Conclusion
We conclude that the incremental growth model (Fig. 1) is
more satisfactory for Lunar Crater than the major-explosion
dominated model (Fig. 2). We suspect that a similar
conclusion would be reached at most other maar volcanoes
because Lunar Crater is fairly typical in its characteristics. In
addition, monogenetic volcanoes (not including purely
hydrothermal events) have never, to our knowledge, been
observed to produce a single explosion that emits most of the
erupted volume at one time; rather they are characterized by
protracted activity over days to decades that varies in style
and mass flux (e.g., Wood 1980). We infer that beneath
Lunar Crater there is a diatreme that preserves evidence of a
complex eruptive history.
Acknowledgements This work was funded in part by the US National
Science Foundation (grant EAR-1016100). We thank James White,
Jocelyn McPhie, Bruce Kjarsgaard, and Pierre-Simon Ross for insightfuls
reviews of earlier drafts of the manuscript
References
Austin-Erickson A, Büttner R, Dellino P, Ort MH, Zimanowski B
(2008) Phreatomagmatic explosions of rhyolitic magma: exper-
imental and field evidence. J Geophys Res 113:B11201.
doi:10.1029/2008JB005731
Büttner R, Zimanowski B (1998) Physics of thermohydraulic
explosions. Phys Rev E 57:5726–5729
Crowe BM, Wohletz KH, Vaniman DT, Gladney E, Bower N (1986)
Status of volcanic hazard studies for the Nevada Nuclear Waste
Storage Investigations. Los Alamos Nat Lab Rep LA-9325-MS
vol. II, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
Delaney PT (1982) Rapid intrusion of magma into wet rock:
groundwater flow due to pore pressure increases. J Geophys
Res 87:7739–7756
Delaney PT, Pollard DD (1981) Deformation of host rocks and flow of
magma during growth of minette dikes and breccia bearing
intrusions near Ship Rock, New Mexico. US Geol Surv Prof
Paper 1202:61
Dickson LD (1995) Volcanology and geochemistry of Pliocene and
Quaternary basalts on Citadel Mountain, Lunar Crater Volcanic
Field, Pancake Range, Nevada. MS Thesis, University of Nevada
Las Vegas (USA)
Elsworth D, Voight B (1992) Theory of dike intrusion in a saturated
porous solid. J Geophys Res 97:9105–9117
Erlund EJ, Cashman KV, Wallace PJ, Pioli L, Rosi M, Johnson E,
Delgado Granados H (2010) Compositional evolution of magma
Bull Volcanol (2011) 73:753–765
from Parícutin volcano, Mexico: the tephra record. J Volcanol
Geotherm Res 197:167–187
Fisher RV, Schmincke H-U (1984) Pyroclastic rocks. Springer, Berlin,
p 472
Foland KA, Bergman SC (1992) Temporal and spatial distribution of
basaltic volcanism in the Pancake and Reveille Ranges north of
Yucca Mountain. Proc Intl Nuclear Waste Symposium, v. 2,
American Nuclear Society and American Society of Civil
Engineers 2366–2371.
Gaffney ES, Damjanac B, Valentine GA (2007) Localization of
volcanic activity: 2. Effects of pre-existing structure. Earth Planet
Sci Lett 263:323–338
Goto A, Taniguchi H, Yoshida M, Ohba T, Oshima H (2001) Effect of
explosions energy and depth to the formation of blast wave and
crater: field explosion experiment for the understanding of
volcanic explosion. Geophys Res Lett 28:4287–4290
Gregg TKP, Zimbleman JR (2000) Volcanic vestiges, pulling it all
together. In: Zimbleman JR, Gregg TKP (eds) Environmental
effects on volcanic eruptions, from deep oceans to deep space.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 243–250
Kargel JS (1987) The geochemistry of basalts and mantle inclusions
from the Lunar Crater Volcanic Field, Nevada: petrogenesis and
geodynamic implications. MS thesis, Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio (USA)
Keating GN, Valentine GA, Krier DJ, Perry FV (2008) Shallow
plumbing systems for small-volume basaltic volcanoes. Bull
Volcanol 70:563–582. doi:10.1007/s00445-007-0154-1
Kieffer SW (1981) Fluid dynamics of the May 18 blast at Mount St.
Helens. In: Lipman PW, Mullineaux DR (eds) The 1980
eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington, US Geol Surv Prof
Pap 1250: 379–400
Lorenz V (1986) On the growth of maars and diatremes and its relevance
to the formation of tuff-rings. Bull Volcanol 48:265–274
Lorenz V (2009) The maar-diatreme volcano: a peculiar volcano type
that largely prefers to work underground. Proceedings, 3rd Int.
Maar Conf., Malargüe, Argentina
Lorenz V, Kurszlaukis S (2007) Root zone processes in the
phreatomagmatic pipe emplacement model and consequences
for the evolution of maar-diatreme volcanoes. J Volcanol
Geotherm Res 159:4–32
Mastin LG (1991) A simple calculator of ballistic trajectories for
blocks ejected during volcanic eruptions. US Geol Surv Open-
File Rep 01-45, v. 1.2
Melosh HJ (1989) Impact cratering a geologic process. Oxford Univ
Press, New York, 245
Nemeth K, White JDL (2003) Reconstructing eruption processes of a
Miocene monogenetic volcanic field from vent remnants:
Waipiata Volcanic Field, South Island, New Zealand. J Volcanol
Geotherm Res 124:1–21
Nemeth K, Martin U (2007) Shallow sill and dyke complex in western
Hungary as a possible feeding system of phreatomagmatic
volcanoes in “soft-rock” environment. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
159:138–152
Nemeth K, Martin U, Sz H (2001) Miocene phreatomagmatic
volcanism at Tihany (Pannonian Basin, Hungary). J Volcanol
Geotherm Res 111:111–135
Ross P-S, White JDL (2006) Debris jets in contintental phreatomag-
matic volcanoes: a field study on their subterranean deposits in
the Coombs Hill vent complex, Antarctica. J Volcanol Geotherm
Res 149:62–84
765
Ross P-S, White JDL, Zimanowski B, Büttner R (2008a) Multiphase flow
above explosion sites in debris-filled volcanic vents: Insights from
analogue experiments. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 178:104–112
Ross P-S, White JDL, Zimanowski B, Büttner R (2008b) Rapid
injection of particles and gas into non-fluidized granular material,
and some volcanological implications. Bull Volcanol 70:1151–
1168. doi:10.1007/s00445-008-0230-1
Sato H, Taniguchi H (1997) Relationship between crater size and
ejecta volume of recent magmatic and phreato-magmatic erup-
tions: implications for energy partitioning. Geophys Res Lett
24:205–208
Self S, Kienle J, Huot J-P (1980) Ukinrek Maars, Alaska, II. Deposits and
formation of the 1977 craters. J Volcano Geotherm Res 7:39–65
Shepard MK, Arvidson RE, Caffee M, Finkel R, Harris L (1995)
Cosmogenic exposure ages of basalt flows: Lunar Crater volcanic
field, Nevada. Geology 23:21–24
Starostin AB, Barmin AA, Melnik OE (2005) A transient model for
explosive and phreatomagmatic eruptions. J Volcano Geotherm
Res 143:133–151
Taddeucci J, Sottili G, Palladino DM, Ventura G, Scarlato P (2010) A
note on maar eruption energetics: current models and their
application. Bull Volcanol 72: doi:10.1007/s00445-009-0298-2
Valentine GA, Harrington CD (2006) Clast size controls and longevity
of Pleistocene desert pavements at Lathrop Wells and Red Cone
volcanoes, southern Nevada. Geology 34:533–536. doi:10.1130/
G22481.1
Valentine GA, Krogh KEC (2006) Emplacement of shallow dikes and
sills beneath a small basaltic volcanic center—the role of
preexisting structure (Paiute Ridge, southern Nevada, USA).
Earth Planet Sci Lett 246:217–230
Valentine GA, Perry FV (2006) Decreasing magmatic footprints of
individual volcanoes in a waning basaltic field. Geophys Res Lett
33:L14305. doi:10.1029/2006GL026743
Walker GPL (1973) Lengths of lava flows. Phil Trans R Soc Lond Ser
A 274:107–118
Wells SG, Dohrenwend JC, McFadden LD, Turin BD, Mahrer KD
(1985) Late Cenozoic landscape evolution on lava flow surfaces
of the Cima volcanic field, Mojave Desert, California. Geol Soc
Am Bull 96:1518–1529
White JDL (1991) Maar-diatreme phreatomagmatism at Hopi Buttes,
Navajo Nation (Arizona), USA. Bull Volcanol 53:239–258
Wohletz KH, McQueen RG (1984) Experimental studies of hydro-
volcanic volcanism. Studies in geophysics. National Academic,
Washington, pp 158–169
Wood CA (1980) Morphometric evolution of cinder cones. J Volcanol
Geotherm Res 7:387–413
Yogodzinski GM, Naumann TR, Smith EI, Bradshaw TK (1996)
Evolution of a mafic volcanic field in the central Great Basin,
south central Nevada. J Geophys Res 101:17425–17445
Yokoo A, Taniguchi H, Goto A, Oshima H (2002) Energy and depth
of Usu 2000 phreatic explosions. Geophys Res Lett 29:2195.
doi:10.1029/2002GL015728
Zimanowski B, Fröhlich G, Lorenz V (1995) Experiments on steam
explosion by interaction of water with silicate melts. Nuc Eng
Design 155:335–343
Zimanowski B, Büttner R, Lorenz V (1997a) Premixing of magma
and water in MFCI experiments. Bull Volcanol 58:491–495
Zimanowski B, Büttner R, Lorenz V, Häfele H-G (1997b) Fragmen-
tation of basaltic melt in the course of explosive volcanism. J
Geophys Res 102:803–814