See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271200918

The use of palaeomagnetism and rock magnetism to understand volcanic

processes: Introduction

Article  in  Geological Society London Special Publications · January 2015

DOI: 10.1144/SP396.17

CITATIONS READS

9 208

3 authors:

Michael Ort Massimiliano Porreca

Northern Arizona University Università degli Studi di Perugia
93 PUBLICATIONS   1,859 CITATIONS    96 PUBLICATIONS   823 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

John Geissman
University of Texas at Dallas
314 PUBLICATIONS   4,294 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

VAREC: Vertical axis rotation in the Eastern Cordillera View project

PALEOMAGNETIC AND ROCK MAGNETIC DATA FROM MID-CRETACEOUS COARSE-GRAINED STRATA FROM THE CORDILLERAN FORELAND BASIN: A MEANS TO TEST THE
TWO-PHASE TECTONOSTRATIGRAPHIC MODEL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Massimiliano Porreca on 22 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The use of palaeomagnetism and rock magnetism to
understand volcanic processes: introduction
M. H. ORT1*, M. PORRECA2,3 & J. W. GEISSMAN4
1
SESES, Northern Arizona University, Box 4099, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
2
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Via dell’Arcivescovado,
8-67100 L’Aquila, Italy
3
Departamento de Geociências, Centro de Vulcanologia e Avaliação de Riscos Geológicos
(CVARG), Universidade dos Açores, 9500 – 801 Ponta Delgada, Portugal
4
Department of Geosciences, ROC 21, The University of Texas at Dallas,
800 West Campbell Road, Richardson, TX 75080, USA
*Corresponding author (e-mail: michael.ort@nau.edu)

Abstract: This Special Publication provides a snapshot of our understanding of volcanic pro-
cesses through the use of palaeomagnetic and rock magnetic techniques. Here, we provide a
context for the book, placing individual chapters within the milieu of previous work, including
some magnetic techniques that were not used in the particular studies described herein. Thermo-
remanent magnetization is a powerful tool to understand processes related to heating and
cooling of rocks, including estimating the temperature of emplacement of pyroclastic deposits,
which may allow us to better understand the rates of cooling during eruption and transport. Aniso-
tropy of magnetic susceptibility and anisotropy of remanence are used primarily to investigate rock
fabrics, and allow the interpretation of flow dynamics in dykes, lava flows and pyroclastic deposits,
as well as the location of the eruptive vents. Rock magnetic characteristics can help in the corre-
lation of volcanic deposits but also provide means to date volcanic deposits and to better understand
the processes of cooling of the deposits, as the magnetic minerals can change with temperature. In
addition, volcanic rocks may be key recorders of past magnetic fields, allowing a better understand-
ing of changes in field intensity and, perhaps, providing clues of how the magnetic field is formed.

Over the past several decades, palaeomagnetic and
rock magnetic techniques have been applied to
numerous problems in volcanology. Since Aramaki
& Akimoto’s pioneering study in 1957, which used
natural remanent magnetization (NRM) data to
qualitatively estimate the temperature of emplace-
ment of selected pyroclastic deposits in Japan (Ara-
maki & Akimoto 1957), many studies have utilized
and refined the approach of using progressive ther-
mal demagnetization data to estimate emplacement
temperatures of pyroclastic deposits and have dem-
onstrated the utility of this approach in many set-
tings. Another extensively utilized technique is
that of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS),
which was first applied to pyroclastic volcanic rocks
by Ellwood (1982) on ignimbrites in the San Juan
Mountains, SW Colorado, USA, to estimate flow
fabrics and, in that study, to infer source locations
through triangulation. It is staggering to think of
the number and diversity of AMS studies on volca-
nic rocks that have been undertaken since that time,
in a bit more than three decades! Remanent mag-
netization characteristics have long been used to
correlate volcanic rocks and such data, together
with rock magnetic properties, have been employed
to study crystallization and cooling processes (e.g.
Schlinger et al. 1988; Wells & Hillhouse 1989).
As techniques have been refined, and the sensitivity,
precision, reliability and/or speed of measurements
for an array of modern instrumentation all have
improved, workers have been able to study volcanic
problems in more detail, pulling out details of the
processes that have not previously been considered.
In addition, the types of problems addressed have
diversified considerably. We intend this Special
Publication to provide a representative suite of con-
tributions that help to summarize the current array of
studies that apply palaeomagnetism and rock mag-
netism to volcanic processes, and to stimulate fur-
ther research in this exciting science!
This book is a result of two sessions on volcanic
processes and palaeomagnetism held at the Inter-
national Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Con-
gress in Melbourne, Australia, in July 2011, and at
the American Geophysical Union Annual Meet-
ing in San Francisco, USA, in December 2011.

From: Ort, M. H., Porreca, M. & Geissman, J. W. (eds) The Use of Palaeomagnetism and Rock Magnetism to
Understand Volcanic Processes. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 396,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP396.17
# The Geological Society of London 2015. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
 M. H. ORT ET AL.
Angharad Hills at the Geological Society of London
graciously and tactfully guided this book and the
editors through the entire process from chapter soli-
citation to publication.
Thermoremanent magnetization in volcanic
rocks and emplacement temperature
estimates
It has long been recognized that many volcanic
rocks, with a wide range in composition, are capa-
ble of recording the direction of Earth’s magnetic
field at the time of their emplacement, crystalliza-
tion and cooling with great fidelity (e.g. Koenigs-
berger 1938; Nagata 1943). In addition, following
the seminal work of Neel (1949, 1955) describing
the theory of single-domain (SD) grains and the
principle of thermal remanent magnetization (TRM)
acquisition in the context of remanence blocking,
workers began to more and more systematically
use progressive thermal demagnetization methods,
which, as discussed below, form the basis for esti-
mating emplacement temperatures of pyroclastic
deposits, to successfully isolate a well-grouped and
well-defined magnetization characteristic of the vol-
canic deposit and interpret it as a TRM (e.g. Wilson
& Everitt 1963). The results of thermal demagneti-
zation experiments provided workers with a better
understanding of the laboratory unblocking temp-
erature spectra of different volcanic rocks and the
recognition that such spectra could be substan-
tially ‘distributed’ as opposed to thermally ‘discrete’
(McElhinny 1973).
The earliest attempt to use remanence data to
estimate emplacement temperatures was that by
Aramaki & Akimoto (1957), whose groundbreaking
paper on the application of palaeomagnetic tech-
niques to volcanism described how directions of
natural remanent magnetization (NRM) could be
used to estimate the relative temperature of empla-
cement of several deposits in Japan, including mud-
flows and ‘nuee ardentes’. These workers assumed
that the NRM consisted of essentially the TRM and
therefore, in the absence of progressive thermal
demagnetization data, they could not provide infor-
mation bearing on whether any of the deposits came
to rest at an intermediate temperature. Nonetheless,
their research provided the basis for subsequent
workers to further develop methods of estimating
emplacement temperatures based on progressive
thermal demagnetization characteristics of clasts
in the rocks, improving the method’s accuracy and
precision even as instruments improved (Chadwick
1971; Hoblitt & Kellogg 1979; Kent et al. 1981;
Urrutia-Fucugauchi 1983; McClelland & Druitt
1989; Tamura et al. 1991; Pares et al. 1993; Mande-
ville et al. 1994; Bardot & McClelland 2000; Cioni
et al. 2004; Zanella et al. 2007). Today, a common
practice is to sample lithic fragments that were
entrained in the pyroclastic current and use detailed,
progressive thermal demagnetization methods to
extract the full character of the NRM in the
clasts and, from these data, infer temperatures of
emplacement.
The principle behind the technique of using pro-
gressive thermal demagnetization to estimate the
temperature of emplacement of pyroclastic depos-
its is elegantly described in Bardot & McClelland
(2000). If a pyroclastic deposit is emplaced above
surface ambient temperature, then (accidental) lithic
clasts incorporated into the deposit are heated while
the deposit is at elevated temperature; ultimately,
the clasts cool to ambient temperature in their pre-
sent position. In the process of heating during
entrainment, a part of the original magnetization
in the clast, with blocking temperatures less than or
equal to the maximum temperature that the clast
reaches while tumbling in the current or immedi-
ately after deposition, will have been thermally
unblocked. In cooling, the clast acquires a new, par-
tial thermoremanence (pTRM). Thus, in principle,
the original, higher blocking temperature rema-
nence in each clast will be random in its direction,
and the lower blocking temperature pTRM will
have the same direction in each clast; this direc-
tion will be parallel to the local geomagnetic field
during cooling.
Thus, the emplacement temperature of the lithic
clast can be estimated through progressive thermal
demagnetization, a commonly used technique, typi-
cally involving conventional, commercially available
high-quality thermal demagnetization apparati, in
active palaeomagnetic laboratories. The process, if
heating and cooling of the specimens from lithic
clasts are carried out in a very weak magnetic field
(i.e. 5 nT or less), unblocks or demagnetizes that
part of the remanence with blocking temperatures
up to each peak temperature selected. An increment
of the total remanence is unblocked at each demag-
netization step. At demagnetization temperatures up
to the actual emplacement temperature, the low
blocking temperature pTRM, which is parallel to the
ambient geomagnetic field, is unblocked. At demag-
netization temperatures above the emplacement
temperature, the pre-existing, higher blocking temp-
erature remanence is progressively unblocked. The
emplacement temperature is then estimated to be
between the highest demagnetization temperature
required to fully unblock the low blocking tempera-
ture pTRM and the next temperature step, where the
pre-existing remanence begins to be unblocked. Part
of the success of the technique, obviously, depends
on the care that the worker takes in the laboratory!
Although all of this may sound straightforward
to those interested in extracting thermal information
 INTRODUCTION
from pyroclastic deposits, there are several caveats
concerning the technique summarized above. One
involves the blocking temperature spectra of the
lithic clasts incorporated into the deposit. If the
lithic clasts are characterized by high, thermally ‘dis-
crete’ blocking temperatures (e.g. a narrow range
from 550 to 580 8C), then it is predicted that a new
pTRM would not be acquired by clasts incorporated
into a deposit that equilibrated at, say, 400 8C and
that the technique could not be applied. Along this
line, a further caveat is the assumption that the maxi-
mum laboratory unblocking temperature of the
pTRM is identical to its blocking temperature, as dis-
cussed in a broader context by Dunlop & Ozdemir
(2001). Another caveat, as emphasized by Bardot
& McClelland (2000), is the requirement that the
first-removed, lower blocking temperature com-
ponent of magnetization is actually of thermal origin.
As palaeomagnetists very well know, a low labora-
tory unblocking temperature magnetization parallel
to the present-day, or longer-term, time-averaged
normal polarity geomagnetic field direction may be
a viscous remanent magnetization (VRM) or a
chemical remanent magnetization (CRM). An addi-
tional caveat is the possibility of altering the mag-
netic mineralogy of specimens of the lithic clasts
during progressive thermal demagnetization. At the
very least, the bulk, low-field susceptibility of repre-
sentative specimens should be measured between
demagnetization steps to monitor effects of repeated
heating. Another caveat is the size of the lithic clast
sampled. The above discussion assumes that each
lithic clast reached thermal equilibrium in the deposit
when it came to rest and subsequently cooled. The
larger the lithic clast, the longer time required
for thermal equilibrium to be reached (Marti et al.
1991; Cioni et al. 2004), so if large (i.e. metre-scale)
clasts are sampled, care should be taken to sample
both the interior and exterior of the clast (e.g.
Bardot & McClelland 2000; Porreca et al. 2008).
As noted above, most efforts at emplacement
temperature determination in pyroclastic rocks have
concentrated on accidental lithic clasts of crustal
materials that existed prior to eruption. Juvenile
clasts, however, which are commonly considered as
fragments in a pyroclastic deposit that are derived
from magma, have been infrequently examined.
Juvenile clasts can consist of pumice, scoria, volca-
nic bombs and other features. A key question in
studying juvenile clasts is their thermal history
and, thus, history of remanence acquisition. Are the
clasts relatively hot (i.e. temperature above that of
the deposit) when they are entrained? Are they rela-
tively cold, like lithic clasts, and thus heated to the
ambient temperature of the deposit when it comes
to rest? Answers to these and other questions per-
tinent to palaeomagnetic investigations of juve-
nile clasts in pyroclastic deposits may come from
systematic studies of both lithic and juvenile
clasts, of different dimensions and composition, in
the same pyroclastic deposit. One likely conse-
quence of further work will be the recognition that
some types of juvenile clasts are characterized by
a magnetic mineralogy that is incapable of yielding
interpretable information (e.g. pumice and rhyolite
clasts dominated by superparamagnetic magnetite).
As our understanding of the many complexities
of using thermal remanence to determine the temp-
eratures of emplacement of pyroclastic deposits has
improved, studies like some of those in this volume
have become possible. Zanella et al. (2014) studied
the deposits from seven major explosive eruptions
at Vesuvius over the past 22 kyr. It is remarkable
how similar the temperatures are between depos-
its of different events. Significant air entrainment
must occur in the eruption column, as the tempera-
tures are far below those of the original magma at
the sampled localities closest to the vent (admit-
tedly, still several kilometres out). Sulpizio et al.
(2014) used similar techniques to study the tempera-
tures of emplacement of pyroclastic deposits at El
Chichón and Colima in México. They found very
different temperatures (360 –420 8C at El Chichón
and 250–330 8C at Colima) but discuss the diffi-
culty in determining the cause of this difference.
Differences in surface roughness may affect the
amount of air incorporated during flow and different
column heights might produce different tempera-
tures at the start of the lateral flowage. It is interest-
ing to note that both of these studies find differences
between the temperatures they determined and some
reported by other workers on the same deposits. The
accuracy of these temperature determinations is still
being improved.
Two other studies reported in this book describe
the combined use of juvenile and lithic clasts to
determine emplacement temperatures of pyroclas-
tic density current (PDC) deposits. Nakaoka &
Suzuki-Kamata (2014) report on their study of
the Habushiura PDC deposit. They show that the
temperatures from the juvenile and lithic clasts are
different, with the juvenile clasts consistently lower.
They believe the juvenile clasts are more reliable as
recorders of the temperature of emplacement. Rader
et al. (2015) studied the emplacement tempera-
tures from clasts in PDC deposits from Tungurahua
and Cotopaxi in Ecuador. They argue for ther-
mal heterogeneity within the currents and deposits,
with juvenile clasts emplaced above 540 8C and
lithic clasts below 90 8C. Other deposits from Tun-
gurahua have cold temperatures for both clast types
and are interpreted as the deposits from lahars, while
others have high temperatures for both and are
interpreted as deposits from thermally well-mixed
PDCs. This brings up questions about the total
mass balance of the currents – how much of the
 M. H. ORT ET AL.
current’s mass is juvenile or heated wallrock (hot)
material and how much is cold country rock, and
how quickly is the heat conducted between them?
This may bear on the applicability of Cioni et al.’s
(2004) argument for rapid heat transfer and ther-
mal homogeneity in PDCs to all cases. Systematic
studies, controlling for the grain sizes and mass
fractions of lithic and juvenile clasts, changes in
temperature with distance, and flow characteristics
will be required to resolve this.
Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility
(AMS) as magmatic flow indicator
The anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) is
an easy and rapid tool to define the fabric of a rock.
Most rocks have magnetic anisotropy because they
contain grains with minerals that are magnetically
anisotropic (i.e. easier to magnetize in certain orien-
tations). The AMS depends therefore on the aniso-
tropy of each mineral and the spatial arrangement
of grains within the rock. AMS is defined by a
second-rank symmetric tensor and is represented
geometrically by an ellipsoid with three principal
axes (Kmax . Kint . Kmin, also referred to as K1,
K2 and K3, respectively). The magnetic lineation
and foliation (at the sample as well as the site
scales) are defined as the Kmax direction and the
plane normal to the Kmin, respectively. The shape
of the ellipsoid can be strongly elongated (prolate
shape) to strongly flattened (oblate shape) or inter-
mediate between them (triaxial shape) (Tarling &
Hrouda 1993). Thanks to these features, the use of
AMS provides good indications of the fabric of a
rock, even when macroscopic evidence is lacking.
The method is very sensitive and can also give good
results in very weakly anisotropic rocks.
Broadly speaking, a distinction can be made
between anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility
(AMS) and anisotropy of different kinds of rema-
nence. Anisotropy of remanence is a measurement
of the anisotropy of ferro/ferrimagnetic minerals
and allows the isolation of the fabric governed by
these minerals. This can be done using different
types of magnetizations, including anhysteretic rem-
anence (ARM) (Jackson et al. 1988; Jackson 1991),
isothermal remanence (IRM) acquired at different
peak field strengths (Borradaile & Dehls 1993;
Jelinek 1993; see also Agrò et al. 2014) and thermo-
remanence (TRM) (Cognè 1987). We will mainly
focus on AMS in this introduction, the one that so
far has found the widest range of applications in the
geosciences.
The first researcher to use AMS was Graham
(1954), more than 60 years ago. As he noted, aniso-
tropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) may have
many applications to the study of geological
processes. After his work, several studies used
AMS to characterize the petrofabric of sedimentary,
metamorphic and igneous rocks (Rochette et al.
1992). AMS is particularly sensitive in igneous
rocks because these rocks are rich in magnetic min-
erals (Khan 1962; Tarling & Hrouda 1993). The
interpretation of AMS data in this case is related
to the preferred orientation of mainly ferromag-
netic minerals controlled by magmatic flow. Both
in intrusive and extrusive volcanic processes, the
volcanic products are subjected to hydrodynamic
forces that tend to arrange the grains and minerals
along particular orientations. The AMS becomes
in this way an excellent flow indicator. In intrusive
bodies (plutons, dykes and sills) and lava flows,
the conceptual model related to magnetic mineral
orientation is the same. The magnetic minerals (par-
ticularly ferromagnetic titanomagnetite minerals)
tend to orientate their greatest axes parallel to the
magmatic flow (see Cañón-Tapia 2004 for a his-
torical review). The maximum axis (magnetic lin-
eation) of the AMS ellipsoid will therefore be
orientated parallel to the flow direction, whereas
the magnetic foliation will reflect the magmatic flow
plane, which is orientated parallel to the dyke/sill
plane or to the palaeotopography for lava flows. In
some cases, the magmatic shear flow along the
dyke margins or at the base of lava flow may gener-
ate an imbrication of grains and crystals that is
also reflected in the geometrical relations between
AMS ellipsoids and contacts with magmatic bod-
ies (Knight & Walker 1988). This fortunate case
of ‘normal’ fabric also allows the definition of the
sense of magmatic flow. This general and simplified
model can be complicated by unexpected orien-
tations of the magnetic axes, as in the case of the
‘inverse’ fabric (i.e. when the magnetic lineation
is orthogonally orientated with respect to the dyke
margins) (Rochette et al. 1992; Tauxe et al. 1998).
This might be due to prevalence of single-domain
(SD) magnetite grains (Potter & Stephenson 1988;
Rochette et al. 1999) or to complications during
magma flow processes, such as turbulence (Cañón-
Tapia & Chávez-Álvarez 2004) or late-stage crys-
tallization (Almqvist et al. 2012). In this case,
additional investigations of the magnetic mineral-
ogy and other independent observations are necess-
ary to understand its origin (e.g. Archanjo et al.
2002; Chadima et al. 2009; Kissel et al. 2010;
Hastie et al. 2011).
Several AMS studies have been performed on
dykes since the seminal work of Knight & Walker
(1988) that tested the idea on how dykes open in
the Koolau volcanic complex (Hawaii). Subsequent
works have used AMS to study both magma move-
ment (Raposo & Ernesto 1995; Tauxe et al. 1998;
Herrero-Bervera et al. 2001) and volcanic stress
fields (Poland et al. 2004; Porreca et al. 2006;
 INTRODUCTION
Soriano et al. 2007; Geshi 2008). Delcamp et al.
(2014) use AMS to infer magma flow in dykes of
a rift zone in Tenerife. Magma movement in this
case is very complicated and does not follow a
specific trend, suggesting that the dykes reflect vari-
ations in the local stress field across the rift or evi-
dence of storage during eruption events. Eriksson
et al. (2014) study magma flow in dykes and associ-
ated stress fields in a palaeo-rift of east Iceland.
They suggest that the subhorizontal magma move-
ment is conditioned by the shear component on
the dyke planes during propagation. These works
open important questions about the reliability of
the AMS as palaeo-stress indicators in dyke swarms.
In contrast, very few applications of AMS to
study dyke emplacement in submarine volcanic
complexes have been carried out (see the case of
the submarine rhyolitic dome of Ponza (Italy) by
Aubourg et al. 2002). Despite the paucity of this
kind of study, such investigations have a clear
importance for better understanding how submarine
eruptions occur. Porreca et al. (2014) perform a
detailed AMS study on the Miocene Cabo de Gata
(Spain) submarine volcanic complex. They found
upward magma flow in most of the dykes but
lateral magma flow occurs where dyke thicknesses
increase. This is interpreted as magma spreading lat-
erally into poorly consolidated hyaloclastite depos-
its. The AMS orientations are well reproduced by
analogue models with diapiric geometry.
In pyroclastic flow deposits, AMS can be used to
evaluate flow directions as in the previous case. The
only difference is related to the passive transpor-
tation of solidified magnetic minerals, whereas, in
lava flows and intrusions, the crystal-forming pro-
cess can be synchronous with emplacement. Given
the large variety of pyroclastic rocks (e.g. ignim-
brite, surge, fallout and lahar) due to the different
eruptive, transport and depositional mechanisms, the
interpretation of AMS data is not always straight-
forward (Fisher et al. 1993; Ort et al. 1999). In a
general view, pyroclastic flows are characterized
by turbulent and chaotic motion of the transported
particles in sites proximal to the eruptive vent,
whereas the transportation and deposition is more
organized and less turbulent at greater distances
from the vent (see also Ort et al. 2014). All of these
aspects can be studied using AMS, as well as the
direction and sense of pyroclastic flows. The nor-
mal fabric of pyroclastic flow deposits is considered
to be when the magnetic foliation coincides with the
plane in which the deposition occurs, and maxi-
mum axes are elongated parallel to the main flow
direction. Any imbrication of magnetic foliation and
lineation with respect to the palaeosurface geometry
provides an indication of the sense of the flow.
The first paper using the AMS technique to trian-
gulate vent locations for pyroclastic density currents
was that of Ellwood (1982) on ignimbrites in the San
Juan Mountains of Colorado, USA. Incoronato et al.
(1983) soon followed up, using the technique to
identify source areas for small-volume pyroclastic
density current deposits. Several other authors
used the technique to triangulate source vents for
ignimbrites in the late 1980s and 1990s (Knight
et al. 1986; MacDonald & Palmer 1990; Hillhouse
& Wells 1991; Seaman et al. 1991; Ort 1993;
Palmer et al. 1996; Cagnoli & Tarling 1997; Mac-
Donald et al. 1998; Ort et al. 1999). The inferred
flow directions may be discordant in particular
sites, as a consequence of local and topographical
effects (Baer et al. 1997). In some cases, the inferred
flow directions may not be orientated parallel to the
main palaeovalley axes but orientated at variable
angles, or, in other cases, they may show evidence
of backflow towards the vent (Fisher et al. 1993;
Ort et al. 1999; Gurioli et al. 2005, 2007). All of
these effects may be related to flow disturbance or
blockage during transport and can be studied using
a systematic AMS sampling of different facies in
the pyroclastic deposits (see Ort et al. 2014; Will-
cock et al. 2014).
By the early 1990s, the technique began to be
used to study flow and depositional processes in
ignimbrites (Fisher et al. 1993; Ort 1993; Baer
et al. 1997; Le Pennec et al. 1998; Ort et al. 2003;
Porreca et al. 2003; Pioli et al. 2008). These
authors found that the shape of the ellipsoid and
the grouping of axes could be used to interpret
depositional processes, which could then reveal
details of flow processes. Ort et al. (2014) reinforce
the use of AMS to characterize the fabric of ignim-
brites and to retrieve information about transport
and deposition mechanisms of pyroclastic density
currents. They found similar magnetic fabrics in
two different types of pyroclastic current deposits
(small and large volume), moving from proximal
to distal areas. In proximal areas, the AMS is not
well defined, testifying to a chaotic particle trans-
portation, whereas it is well defined in medial and
distal areas where the flow is more organized. The
authors propose a general model for AMS facies
as a starting point for developing more complete
models for depositional processes, as revealed
through deposit fabrics.
The AMS facies can also be well preserved in
very old ignimbrites, if important chemical or tec-
tonic events do not overprint the original fabric.
Willcock et al. (2014) use AMS to study the large-
volume intra-caldera Permian Ora (Italy) ignim-
brite. The magnetic fabric in this case reveals
complex flow dynamics controlled by underlying
topography, caldera walls, welding and post-
emplacement mineral growth. The AMS shapes
and orientations have provided strong indications
on the blocking effect by the caldera walls on the
 M. H. ORT ET AL.
pyroclastic flow and meandering dense flows on the
caldera floor.
When the primary magnetic fabric is modified
by complex mineralogy and post-depositional pro-
cesses, it is convenient to compare the natural AMS
results with AMS results obtained after application
of artificial magnetic remanence. In this case, the
orientation of the ferromagnetic minerals, which
are the carriers of the remanence, is investigated.
Agrò et al. (2014) study several stratigraphic sec-
tions of the Pliocene ignimbrite in Central Anatolia
(Turkey) using AMS and anisotropy of isothermal
remanent magnetization (AIRM). The integration
of these analyses produces an improvement on the
inferred flow directions, giving important con-
straints on the source areas of the ignimbrite.
Rock magnetism
Ever since Everitt (1960) used palaeomagnetic data
to discriminate between mafic lavas and mafic intru-
sions in the West Midlands of England, palaeo-
magnetic data have been used as a correlation
tool for volcanic rocks, and to understand cooling
and recrystallization processes. One use of magnetic
remanence is for correlating volcanic units (Grommé
et al. 1972; Reynolds 1977, 1979; Hildreth & Mah-
ood 1985; Ort et al. 2013). This technique relies on
the general stability of the remanent magnetization
in volcanic rocks, including pyroclastic rocks, lava
flows and dykes. A comparison of the characteristic
remanent magnetization (ChRM) between outcrops
can allow for a correlation to be made. Combining
the ChRM with other rock magnetic characteris-
tics can improve this correlation tool, as Vigliotti
(2014) shows in his work. He compares the terres-
trial deposits of the Campanian Ignimbrite with
the ashes (Y5) found in marine cores in the Tyr-
hennian Sea. In addition to the ChRM, he shows
that the carrier of the magnetization, including its
size and trends in composition and characteristics
(determined using hysteresis loops, thermomag-
netic curves, magnetic susceptibility, anhysteretic
and isothermal remanences), can itself be a useful
correlation tool, even allowing the determination
of which part of the terrestrial deposit may be rep-
resented by the marine tephra. Other workers have
used the acquisition of a thermal remanence to
determine relative timing in volcanic sequences.
For example, Reynolds et al. (1986) used the reset-
ting of the magnetization at a contact baked by a
dyke, combined with the ChRM of a number of
volcanic units in the Lake City Caldera, to deter-
mine the total length of time of resurgent magma-
tism there. Champion & Donnelly-Nolan (1994)
used precisely determined ChRM values from the
Giant Crater lava field at Medicine Lake volcano,
California, combined with arguments based on
rates of motion on palaeosecular variation curves,
to show that the field was emplaced over a time
period of 10–30 years.
The intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field in
the past is of interest for many reasons, including
understanding how the field is formed in the first
place. A record of the palaeointensity would also
allow another correlation tool on the same lines as
the palaeosecular variation paths. Gee et al. (2010),
building upon work by others (e.g. Selkin & Tauxe
2000; Biggin & Thomas 2003; Valet 2003), showed
that volcanic rocks can be good recorders of inten-
sity, largely because the oxides typically carry a
thermoremanent magnetization. Ferk et al. (2014)
build upon these works by applying a deep under-
standing of the physical properties of glass. They
find that complications caused by the domain state
and alteration are minor, and the effects of cool-
ing rate can be accounted for. The problems of
an incomplete understanding of the origin of the
remanence and effects of hydration of the glass
remain.
Because lavas and pyroclastic rocks are depos-
ited hot, the crystallization history of magnetic min-
eral phases can be complex. The magnetic grains
can form in the magma prior to, during and well
after deposition, and still bear a thermoremanent
magnetization. This TRM can also be ‘overprinted’
by a viscous or chemical remanent magnetization.
Hatherton (1954) and Gose (1970) showed that
the magnetization in ignimbrites varies over a very
large range and showed that this came from dif-
ferent magnetic grain types. Geissman et al. (1983)
showed that the carriers of the magnetization
included both single-domain and pseudo-single-
domain grains, in their case titanomagnetite. Schlin-
ger et al. (1991) built upon these works, and used
rock magnetic characteristics and the magnetic
grain types they determined to interpret processes
in the cooling and recrystallization of ignim-
brites from southern Nevada, USA. It is clear that
the crystallization of the magnetic grains and, con-
sequently, the remanent magnetization varies
between and within ignimbrites, and, to a somewhat
lesser extent, in lava flows and dykes. Geuna et al.
(2014) use magnetic characteristics of Cretaceous
basalt lava flows to describe three groups with
different magnetic characteristics. They show that
the stable magnetic remanence in most of the
basalts is primarily due to maghemite and hematite
that formed shortly after emplacement in a hydro-
thermal system. Some basalts show a thermo-
remanent magnetization set in magmatic magnetic
grains, whereas later low-temperature alteration,
probably due to weathering, created a third group
of magnetization with distinct characteristics. As
we come to understand the source for the magnetiza-
tion that we measure in volcanic rocks, we may be
 INTRODUCTION
able to distinguish several different geological
events in single specimens.
Future questions
Over the past century, many improvements in tech-
nology and, more importantly, new ideas and fresh
looks at the problems by geologists and geophysi-
cists have allowed us to view palaeomagnetic and
rock magnetic phenomena, and the processes that
form them in new ways. This volume is a snapshot
of some of the current ideas on palaeomagnetism
and rock magnetism as applied to volcanological
problems. Many questions remain to be solved,
and many more have not yet even been seriously
considered. Here are a few outstanding problems
that we expect can be addressed with current tech-
niques and considerable effort:
† When does remanence get acquired in lithic and
juvenile clasts in hot pyroclastic flows? Two
papers in this Special publication discuss using
juvenile clasts in this process, something that
has been debated for years. What are the impli-
cations of using these clasts, and how can we
determine whether it is justified in a particular
instance?
† What does AMS tell us about deposition pro-
cesses? To use it for this purpose, we have to
‘see’ through several filters that affect the rock
fabric, including shear in the deposit itself,
shear in the basal depositional regime of the
current and how the depositional regime may
relate to the transport regime.
† When is anisotropy of remanence needed in the
study of rock fabrics? What are the character-
istics that should indicate that ARM is needed?
† Two possible sources for an AMS fabric are
commonly discussed: actual alignment of mag-
netic grains based on their shape anisotropy and
alignment of equant or nearly equant grains
along lineations or foliations (called distribution
anisotropy). What can we learn about volcanic
and rock magnetic processes if we can dis-
tinguish between the two types of anisotropy?
† The identification of the different sources of
magnetic remanence in volcanic rocks may
allow us to better understand their emplacement
and cooling processes. This may help to resolve
many problems, such as how welding, rheo-
morphism and compaction occur in ignimbrites,
or to describe the deformation associated with
lava flow inflation. Combined with AMS and
ARM, we may be able to identify when different
fabrics are formed in the rocks.
We see the combination of palaeomagnetism, rock
magnetism and volcanology as an area of collab-
oration that will be fruitful for many years in the
future. We hope this volume serves as an indication
of where the science currently is and perhaps as an
impetus for future research.
We thank A. Hills for her many efforts in bringing this
book to completion and the staff of Geological Society
of London for making it so. The authors of all the chapters
are thanked for choosing to publish their excellent work in
this volume. Without the many reviewers of the chapters,
this book would have been impossible and we are indebted
to these people for the donation of their time and thoughts.
References
Agrò, A., Zanella, E., Le Pennec, J.-L. & Temel, A.
2014. Magnetic fabric of ignimbrites: a case study from
the Central Anatolian Volcanic Province. In: Ort,
M. H., Porreca, M. & Geissman, J. W. (eds) The Use
of Palaeomagnetism and Rock Magnetism to Under-
stand Volcanic Processes. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 396. First published online April
4, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP396.9
Almqvist, B. S. G., Bosshard, S. A., Hirt, A. M.,
Mattsson, H. B. & Hetényi, G. 2012. Internal flow
structures in columnar jointed basalt from Hrepphólar,
Iceland: II. magnetic anisotropy and rock magnetic
properties. Bulletin of Volcanology, 74, 1667– 1681,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00445-012-0622-0
Aramaki, S. & Akimoto, S. 1957. Temperature estima-
tion of pyroclastic deposits by natural remanent mag-
netism. American Journal of Science, 255, 619 –627.
Archanjo, C. J., Arau, M. G. S. & Launeau, P. 2002.
Fabric of the Rio Cearà-Mirim mafic dike swarm
(northeastern Brazil) determined by anisotropy of mag-
netic susceptibility and image analysis. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 107, 2046.
Aubourg, C., Giordano, G., Mattei, M. & Speranza, F.
2002. Magma flow in sub-aqueous rhyolitic dikes
inferred from magnetic fabric analysis (Ponza Island,
Italy). Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27,
1263– 1272, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7065
(02)00113-4
Baer, E. M., Fisher, R. V., Fuller, M. & Valentine, G.
1997. Turbulent transport and deposition of the Ito pyr-
oclastic flow: determinations using anisotropy of mag-
netic susceptibility. Journal of Geophysical Research,
102, 22 565–22 586.
Bardot, L. & McClelland, E. 2000. The reliability of
emplacement temperature estimates using palaeomag-
netic methods: a case study from Santorini, Greece.
Geophysical Journal International, 143, 39– 51.
Biggin, T. & Thomas, D. N. 2003. Analysis of long-
term variations in the geomagnetic poloidal field
intensity and evaluation of their relationship with
global geodynamics. Geophysical Journal Interna-
tional, 152, 392–415, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.
1365-246X.2003.01849.x
Borradaile, G. J. & Dehls, J. F. 1993. Regional kinemat-
ics inferred from magnetic subfabrics in Archean rocks
of northern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Structural
Geology, 15, 887–894.
Cagnoli, B. & Tarling, D. H. 1997. The reliability of ani-
sotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) data as flow
 M. H. ORT ET AL.
direction indicators in friable base surge and ignimbrite
deposits: Italian examples. Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research, 75, 309–320.
Cañón-Tapia, E. 2004. Anisotropy of magnetic suscepti-
bility of lava flows and dykes: a historical account.
In: Martin Hernandez, F., Aubourg, C., Jackson,
M. & Luneburg, C. (eds) Magnetic Fabric Methods
and Applications. Geological Society, London, Spe-
cial Publications, 238, 205–225, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.238.01.14
Cañón-Tapia, E. & Chávez-A ´ lvarez, M. J. 2004. Theor-
etical aspects of particle movement in flowing magma:
implication for the anisotropy of magnetic suscepti-
bility of dykes and lava flows. In: Martin Hernan-
dez, F., Aubourg, C., Jackson, M. & Luneburg,
C. (eds) Magnetic Fabric Methods and Applications.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
238, 227– 249.
Chadima, M., Cajz, V. & Týcová, P. 2009. On the
interpretation of normal and inverse magnetic fabric
in dikes: examples from the Eger Graben, NW Bohe-
mian Massif. Tectonophysics, 466, 47–63, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2008.09.005
Chadwick, R. A. 1971. Paleomagnetic criteria for volca-
nic breccia emplacement. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 82, 2285– 2294.
Champion, D. E. & Donnelly-Nolan, J. M. 1994.
Duration of eruption at the Giant Crater lava field,
Medicine Lake volcano, California, based on paleo-
magnetic secular variation. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 99, 15 595–15 604.
Cioni, R., Gurioli, L., Lanza, R. & Zanella, E.
2004. Temperatures of the A.D. 79 pyroclastic den-
sity current deposits (Vesuvius, Italy). Journal of
Geophysical Research, 109, B02207.
Cognè, J.-P. 1987. TRM deviations in anisotropic assem-
blages of multidomain magnetites. Geophysical Jour-
nal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 90, 1013–1023.
Delcamp, A., Petronis, M. S. & Troll, V. R. 2014.
Discerning magmatic flow patterns in shallow-level
basaltic dykes from the NE rift zone of Tenerife,
Spain, using the Anisotropy of Magnetic Susceptibil-
ity (AMS) technique. In: Ort, M. H., Porreca, M.
& Geissman, J. W. (eds) The Use of Palaeomagnetism
and Rock Magnetism to Understand Volcanic Pro-
cesses. Geological Society, London, Special Publica-
tions, 396. First published online February 5, 2014,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP396.2
Dunlop, D. J. & Ozdemir, O. 2001. Beyon Neel’s
theories: thermal demagnetization of narrow-band par-
tial thermoremanent magnetization. Physics of the
Earth and Planetary Interiors, 126, 43–57.
Ellwood, B. B. 1982. Estimates of flow direction for
calc-alkaline welded tuffs and paleomagnetic data
reliability from anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility
measurements: central San Juan Mountains, southwest
Colorado. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 59,
303– 314.
Eriksson, P. I., Riishuus, M. S. & Elming, S.-Å. 2014.
Magma flow and palaeo-stress deduced from magnetic
fabric analysis of the Álftafjörður dyke swarm: impli-
cations for shallow crustal magma transport in Icelan-
dic volcanic systems. In: Ort, M. H., Porreca, M. &
Geissman, J. W. (eds) The Use of Palaeomagnetism
and Rock Magnetism to Understand Volcanic Pro-
cesses. Geological Society, London, Special Publi-
cations, 396. First published online January 30, 2014,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP396.6
Everitt, C. W. F. 1960. Rock magnetism and the origin of
the Midland Basalts. Geophysical Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 3, 203–210.
Ferk, A., Leonhardt, R., Hess, K.-U. & Dingwell,
D. B. 2014. Volcanic glass and its suitability to
recover the ancient geomagnetic field strength. In:
Ort, M. H., Porreca, M. & Geissman, J. W. (eds)
The Use of Palaeomagnetism and Rock Magnetism to
Understand Volcanic Processes. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 396. First published
online September 3, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1144/SP396.15
Fisher, R. V., Orsi, G., Ort, M. & Heiken, G. 1993.
Mobility of a large-volume pyroclastic flow – empla-
cement of the Campanian ignimbrite, Italy. Journal
of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 56,
205–220.
Gee, J. S., Yu, Y. & Bowles, J. 2010. Paleointen-
sity estimates from ignimbrites: an evaluation of the
Bishop Tuff. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems,
11, Q03010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GC00
2834
Geissman, J. W., Newberry, N. G. & Peacor, D. R. 1983.
Discrete single-domain and pseudo-single-domain
titanomagnetite particles in silicic glass of an ash-
flow tuff. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 20,
334–338.
Geshi, N. 2008. Vertical and lateral propagation of radial
dikes inferred from the flow-direction analysis of the
radial dike swarm in Komochi Volcano, Central
Japan. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research, 173, 122– 134, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jvolgeores.2008.01.001
Geuna, S. E., Lagorio, S. L. & Vizán, H. 2014. Oxi-
dation processes and their effects on the magnetic
remanence of Early Cretaceous subaerial basalts from
Sierra Chica de Córdoba, Argentina. In: Ort, M. H.,
Porreca, M. & Geissman, J. W. (eds) The Use of
Palaeomagnetism and Rock Magnetism to Understand
Volcanic Processes. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 396. First published online Sep-
tember 3, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP396.13
Gose, W. A. 1970. Paleomagnetic studies of Miocene
ignimbrites from Nevada. Geophysical Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 20, 241– 252.
Graham, J. W. 1954. Magnetic susceptibility anisotropy,
an unexploited petrofabric element. Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America, 65, 1257– 1258.
Grommé, C. S., McKee, E. H. & Blake, M. C. 1972.
Paleomagnetic correlation and potassium-argon
dating of middle Tertiary ash-flow sheets in the
eastern Great basin, Nevada and Utah. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 83, 1619–1638.
Gurioli, L., Pareschi, M. T., Zanella, E., Lanza, R.,
Deluca, E. & Bisson, M. 2005. Interaction of pyro-
clastic density currents with human settlements: evi-
dence from ancient Pompeii. Geology, 33, 441– 444,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G21294.1
Gurioli, L., Zanella, E., Pareschi, M. T. & Lanza, R.
2007. Influences of urban fabric on pyroclastic density
 INTRODUCTION
currents at Pompeii (Italy): 1. Flow direction and depo-
sition. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, B05213,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004444
Hastie, W. W., Aubourg, C. & Watkeys, M. K. 2011.
When an ‘inverse’ fabric is not inverse: an integrated
AMS-SPO study in MORB-like dykes. Terra Nova,
23, 49– 55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.
2010.00983.x
Hatherton, T. 1954. The permanent magnetisation of
horizontal volcanic sheets. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 59, 223– 232.
Herrero-Bervera, E., Walker, G. P. L., Cañón-Tapia,
E. & Garcia, M. 2001. Magnetic fabric and inferred
flow direction of dikes, conesheets and sill swarms,
Isle of Skye, Scotland. Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research, 106, 195– 210, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0377-0273(00)00293-6
Hildreth, W. & Mahood, G. 1985. Correlation of
ashflow tuffs. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
96, 968– 974, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606
(1985)96,968:COAT.2.0.CO;2
Hillhouse, J. W. & Wells, R. E. 1991. Magnetic
fabric, flow directions, and source area of the lower
Miocene Peach Springs Tuff in Arizona, California,
and Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research, 96,
12 443 –12 460.
Hoblitt, R. P. & Kellogg, K. S. 1979. Emplacement
temperatures of unsorted and unstratified deposits of
volcanic rock debris as determined by paleomagnetic
techniques. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
90, 633–642.
Incoronato, A., Addison, F. T., Tarling, D. H., Nardi,
G. & Pescatore, T. 1983. Magnetic fabric investi-
gations of pyroclastic deposits from Phlegrean Fields,
southern Italy. Nature, 306, 461–463.
Jackson, M. J. 1991. Anisotropy of magnetic remanence:
a brief review of mineralogical sources, physical
origins, and geological applications, and comparison
with susceptibility anisotropy. Pure and Applied Geo-
physics, 136, 1–28.
Jackson, M. J., Gruber, W., Marvin, J. A. & Bane-
Rjee, S. K. 1988. Partial anhysteretic remanence and
its anisotropy: applications and grainsize dependence.
Geophysics Research Letters, 15, 440 –443.
Jelinek, V. 1993. Theory and measurement of the aniso-
tropy of isothermal remanent magnetization of rocks.
Travaux Geophysique, 37, 124–134.
Kent, D. V., Ninkovich, D., Pescatore, R. & Sparks,
R. S. J. 1981. Palaeomagnetic determination of empla-
cement temperature of Vesuvius AD 79 pyroclastic
deposits. Nature, 290, 393– 396.
Kissel, C., Laj, C., Sigurdsson, H. & Guillou, H.
2010. Emplacement of magma in Eastern Iceland
dikes: insights from magnetic fabric and rock magnetic
analyses. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research, 191, 79–92, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvolgeores.2009.12.008
Khan, M. A. 1962. Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility
of some igneous and metamorphic rocks. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 67, 2873–2885.
Knight, M. D. & Walker, G. P. L. 1988. Magma flow
directions in dikes of the Koolau Complex, Oahu,
determined from magnetic fabric studies. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 93, 4301–4319.
Knight, M. D., Walker, G. P. L., Ellwood, B. B. &
Diehl, J. F. 1986. Stratigraphy, paleomagnetism, and
magnetic fabric of the Toba tuffs: constraints on the
sources and eruptive style. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 91, 10 355–10 382.
Koenigsberger, J. G. 1938. Natural residual magnetism
of eruptive rocks. Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmos-
pheric Electricity, 43, 299–320.
Le Pennec, J.-L., Chen, Y., Diot, H., Froger, J.-L. &
Gourgaud, A. 1998. Interpretation of anisotropy of
magnetic susceptibility fabric of ignimbrites in terms
of kinematic and sedimentological mechanisms: an
Anatolian case-study. Earth Planetary Science Letters,
157, 105–127.
MacDonald, W. D. & Palmer, H. C. 1990. Flow direc-
tions in ash-tuffs: A comparison of geological and
magnetic susceptibility measurements, Tshirege
member (upper Bandelier Tuff), Valles caldera, New
Mexico, USA. Bulletin of Volcanology, 53, 45–59.
MacDonald, W. D., Palmer, H. C. & Hayatsu, A. 1998.
Structural rotation and volcanic source implications
of magnetic data from Eocene volcanic rocks, SW
Idaho. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 156,
225– 237.
Mandeville, C. W., Carey, S., Sigurdsson, H. & King,
J. 1994. Paleomagnetic evidence for high-temperature
emplacement of the 1883 subaqueous pyroclastic flows
from Krakatau Volcano, Indonesia. Journal of Geo-
physical Research, 99, 9487–9504.
Marti, J., Diez-Gil, J. L. & Ortiz, R. 1991. Conduction
model for the thermal influence of lithic clasts in mix-
tures of hot gases and ejecta. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 96, 21 879–21 885.
McClelland, E. & Druitt, T. H. 1989. Palaeomagnetic
estimation of emplacement temperatures of pyroclastic
deposits on Santorini, Greece. Bulletin of Volcanology,
51, 16– 27.
McElhinny, M. W. 1973. Palaeomagnetism and Plate
Tectonics. Cambridge University Press, London.
Nagata, T. 1943. The natural remanent magnetism of vol-
canic rocks and its relation to geomagnetic phenom-
enon. Earthquake Research Institute Bulletin, 21,
1– 196.
Nakaoka, R. & Suzuki-Kamata, K. 2014. Rock-
magnetic evidence for the low-temperature emplace-
ment of the Habushiura pyroclastic density current,
Niijima Island, Japan. In: Ort, M. H., Porreca, M.
& Geissman, J. W. (eds) The Use of Palaeomagnetism
and Rock Magnetism to Understand Volcanic Pro-
cesses. Geological Society, London, Special Publi-
cations, 396. First published online January 23, 2014,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP396.7
Neel, L. 1949. Theorie du trainage magnetique des ferro-
magnetiques en gran fins ave applications aur terrres
cuites. Annales Geophysiques, 5, 99– 136.
Neel, L. 1955. Some theoretical aspects of rock magnet-
ism. Advances in Physics, 4, 191 –242.
Ort, M. H. 1993. Eruptive processes and caldera for-
mation in a nested downsag-collapse caldera: Cerro
Panizos, central Andes Mountains. Journal of Volca-
nology and Geothermal Research, 56, 221 –252,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-0273(93)90018-M
Ort, M. H., Rosi, M. & Anderson, C. D. 1999. Corre-
lation of deposits and vent locations of the proximal
 M. H. ORT ET AL.
Campanian Ignimbrite deposits, Campi Flegrei, Italy,
based on natural remanent magnetization and aniso-
tropy of magnetic susceptibility characteristics. Jour-
nal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 91,
167– 178.
Ort, M. H., Orsi, G., Pappalardo, L. & Fisher, R. V.
2003. Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility studies
of depositional processes in the Campanian Ignimbrite,
Italy. Bulletin of Volcanology, 65, 55–72.
Ort, M. H., de Silva, S. L., Jiménez, C. N.,, Jicha, B. R.
& Singer, B. S. 2013. Correlation of ignimbrites using
characteristic remanent magnetism and anisotropy
of magnetic susceptibility, central Andes, Bolivia.
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14, 141–157,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GC004276
Ort, M. H., Newkirk, T. T., Vilas, J. F. & Vazquez, J. A.
2014. Towards the definition of AMS facies in the
deposits of pyroclastic density currents. In: Ort,
M. H., Porreca, M. & Geissman, J. W. (eds) The
Use of Palaeomagnetism and Rock Magnetism to
Understand Volcanic Processes. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 396. First published
online January 23, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/
SP396.8
Palmer, H. C., MacDonald, W. D., Gromme, C. S. &
Ellwood, B. B. 1996. Magnetic properties and empla-
cement of the Bishop Tuff, California. Bulletin of Vol-
canology, 58, 101–116.
Pares, J. M., Marti, J. & Garces, M. 1993. Thermorema-
nence in red sandstone clasts and emplacement temp-
erature of a Quaternary pyroclastic deposit (Catalan
volcanic zone, NE Spain). Studia geophysica et geode-
tica, 37, 401–414.
Pioli, L., Lanza, R., Ort, M. & Rosi, M. 2008. Magnetic
fabric, welding texture and strain fabric in the Nuraxi
Tuff, Sardinia, Italy. Bulletin of Volcanology, 70,
1123–1137.
Poland, M. P., Fink, J. H. & Tauxe, L. 2004. Patterns
of magma flow in segmented silicic dikes at Sum-
mer Coon volcano, Colorado: AMS and thin section
analysis. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 219,
155–169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(03)
00706-4
Porreca, M., Mattei, M., Giordano, G., De Rita, D. &
Funiciello, R. 2003. Magnetic fabric and impli-
cations for pyroclastic flow and lahar emplacement,
Albano maar, Italy. Journal of Geophysical Research,
108, 2264, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JB002102
Porreca, M., Acocella, V., Massimi, E., Mattei, M.,
Funiciello, R. & Debenedetti, A. 2006. Geometric
and kinematic features of the dike complex at Mt.
Somma, Vesuvio (Italy). Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, 245, 389–407, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
epsl.2006.02.027
Porreca, M., Mattei, M., MacNiocaill, C., Giordano,
G., McClelland, E. & Funiciello, R. 2008. Paleo-
magnetic evidence for low-temperature emplacement
of the phreatomagmatic Peperino Albano ignimbrite
(Colli Albani volcano, Central Italy). Bulletin of Vol-
canology, 70, 877–893, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00445-007-0176-8
Porreca, M., Cifelli, F., Soriano, C., Giordano, G. &
Mattei, M. 2014. Magma flow within dykes in sub-
marine hyaloclastite environments: an AMS study of
the Miocene Cabo de Gata volcanic units. In: Ort,
M. H., Porreca, M. & Geissman, J. W. (eds) The Use
of Palaeomagnetism and Rock Magnetism to Under-
stand Volcanic Processes. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 396. First published online Sep-
tember 3, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/ SP396.14
Potter, D. K. & Stephenson, A. 1988. Single domain
particles in rocks and magnetic fabric analysis. Geo-
physical Research Letters, 15, 1097– 1100.
Rader, E., Geist, D., Geissman, J., Dufek, J. & Harpp,
K. 2015. Hot clasts and cold blasts: thermal heterogen-
eity in boiling-over pyroclastic density currents. In:
Ort, M. H., Porreca, M. & Geissman, J. W. (eds)
The Use of Palaeomagnetism and Rock Magnetism to
Understand Volcanic Processes. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 396. First published
online January 8, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/
SP396.16
Raposo, M. I. & Ernesto, M. 1995. Anisotropy of mag-
netic susceptibility in the Ponta Grossa dyke swarm
(Brazil) and its relationship with magma flow direc-
tion. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors,
87, 183– 196.
Reynolds, R. L. 1977. Paleomagnetism of welded tuffs of
the Yellowstone Group. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 82, 3677–3693.
Reynolds, R. L. 1979. Comparison of the TRM of the
Yellowstone Group and the DRM of some Pearlette
ash beds. Journal of Geophysical Research, 84,
4525– 4532.
Reynolds, R. L., Hudson, M. R. & Hon, K. 1986. Paleo-
magnetic evidence for the timing of collapse and resur-
gence of the Lake City Caldera, San Juan Mountains,
Colorado. Journal of Geophysical Research, 91,
9599– 9613.
Rochette, P., Jackson, M. & Aubourg, C. 1992. Rock
magnetism and the interpretation of aniso- tropy of
magnetic susceptibility. Review of Geophysics, 30,
209–226.
Rochette, P., Aubourg, C. & Perrin, M. 1999. Is this
fabric normal? A review and case studies in volcanic
formations. Tectonophysics, 307, 219–234.
Schlinger, C. M., Rosenbaum, J. G. & Veblen, D. R.
1988. Fe-oxide microcrystals in welded tuff from
southern Nevada: origin of remanence carriers by pre-
cipitation in volcanic glass. Geology, 16, 556–559.
Schlinger, C. M., Veblen, D. R. & Rosenbaum, J. G.
1991. Magnetism and magnetic mineralogy of ash
flow tuffs from Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 96, 6035– 6052.
Seaman, S. J., McIntosh, W. C., Geissman, J. W., Wil-
liams, M. L. & Elston, W. E. 1991. Magnetic fabrics
of the Bloodgood Canyon and Shelley Peak Tuffs,
southwestern New Mexico: implications for emplace-
ment and alteration processes. Bulletin of Volcanology,
53, 460– 476.
Selkin, P. & Tauxe, L. 2000. Long-term variations in
paleointensity. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series A, 358, 1065–1088,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2000.0574
Soriano, C. C., Amorós, E. B. & Crespo, M. G. 2007.
Dike intrusion under shear stress: Effects on mag-
netic and vesicle fabrics in dikes from rift zones of
Tenerife (Canary Islands). Journal of Structural
 INTRODUCTION
Geology, 29, 1931–1942, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jsg.2007.08.005
Sulpizio, R., Zanella, E., Maciás, J. L. & Saucedo, R.
2014. Deposit temperature of pyroclastic density cur-
rents emplaced during the El Chichón 1982 and
Colima 1913 eruptions. In: Ort, M. H., Porreca, M.
& Geissman, J. W. (eds) The Use of Palaeomagnetism
and Rock Magnetism to Understand Volcanic Pro-
cesses. Geological Society, London, Special Publi-
cations, 396. First published online January 30, 2014,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP396.5
Tamura, Y., Koyama, M. & Fiske, R. S. 1991. Palaeo-
magnetic evidence for hot pyroclastic debris flow in
the shallow submarine Shirahama Group (Upper
Miocene-Pliocene), Japan. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 96, 21 779– 21 788.
Tarling, H. D. & Hrouda, F. 1993. The Magnetic Aniso-
tropy of Rocks. Chapman & Hall, London.
Tauxe, L., Gee, J. S. & Staudigel, H. 1998. Flow
directions in dikes from anisotropy of magnetic suscep-
tibility data: the bootstrap way. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 103, 17 775 –17 790.
Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J. 1983. Palaeomagnetic esti-
mation of emplacement temperature of pyroclastic
deposits – preliminary study of Caldera de Los
Humeros and Alchichica Crater. Geofisica Internatio-
nale, 22– 3, 277–292.
Valet, J.-P. 2003. Time variations in geomagnetic inten-
sity. Reviews of Geophysics, 41, 1004, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1029/2001RG000104
Vigliotti, L. 2014. Magnetic properties of the Campanian
Ignimbrite and the marine Y5 tephra layer. In: Ort,
M. H., Porreca, M. & Geissman, J. W. (eds) The Use
of Palaeomagnetism and Rock Magnetism to Under-
stand Volcanic Processes. Geological Society, London,
View publication stats
Special Publications, 396. First published online
January 31, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP396.1
Wells, R. E. & Hillhouse, J. W. 1989. Paleomagnetism
and tectonic rotation of the lower Miocene Peach
Springs Tuff: Colorado Plateau, Arizona, to Barstow,
California. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
101, 846–863.
Willcock, M. A. W., Mattei, M., Hasalová, P., Gior-
dano, G., Cas, R. A. F. & Morelli, C. 2014. Flow
behaviour in the intra-caldera setting: an AMS study
of the large (.1290 km3) Permian Ora ignimbrite.
In: Ort, M. H., Porreca, M. & Geissman, J. W.
(eds) The Use of Palaeomagnetism and Rock Magnet-
ism to Understand Volcanic Processes. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 396. First pub-
lished online January 29, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1144/SP396.3
Wilson, R. L. & Everitt, C. W. F. 1963. Thermal demag-
netization of some Carboniferous lavas for palaeomag-
netic purposes. Geophysical Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 8, 149– 164.
Zanella, E., Gurioli, L., Pareschi, M. T. & Lanza, R.
2007. Influences of urban fabric on pyroclastic density
currents at Pompeii (Italy): 2. temperature of the
deposits and hazard implications. Journal of Geophysi-
cal Research, 112, B05214.
Zanella, E., Sulpizio, R., Gurioli, L. & Lanza, R.
2014. Temperatures of the pyroclastic density currents
deposits emplaced in the last 22 kyr at Somma– Vesu-
vius (Italy). In: Ort, M. H., Porreca, M. & Geissman,
J. W. (eds) The Use of Palaeomagnetism and Rock
Magnetism to Understand Volcanic Processes. Geo-
logical Society, London, Special Publications, 396.
First published online January 31, 2014, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1144/SP396.4