Skip to content

Conceptual models of volcanic systems to support volcano monitoring in Aotearoa New Zealand

Rebecca Fitzgerald1, Ery Hughes 1, Paul Jarvis1, Oliver Lamb2, Graham Leonard1, Shane Rooyakkers3, Aotearoa New Zealand Volcanology Community4

  • Affiliations: 1Volcanology, Te Pῡ Ao GNS Science, Lower Hutt, Aotearoa New Zealand; 2Volcanology, Te Pῡ Ao GNS Science, Wairakei, Aotearoa New Zealand; 3Hydrothermal Systems and Minerals, Te Pῡ Ao GNS Science, Lower Hutt, Aotearoa New Zealand; 4Aotearoa New Zealand

  • Presentation type: Poster

  • Presentation time: Thursday 16:30 - 18:30, Room Poster Hall

  • Poster Board Number: 192

  • Programme No: 1.8.23

  • Theme 1 > Session 8

Abstract

Conceptual models of volcanoes are crucial resources for interpreting volcano monitoring data, creating eruption forecasting tools, and assessing long-term hazards. They can be formed through the synthesis of various datasets (e.g., petrology, geophysics, geochemistry) pertaining to both past eruptions and the current status of the volcano. Commonly, conceptual models can be represented as various cross-section interpretations of the subsurface volcanic system with annotations related to the different processes that might be occurring. The volcanology community across Te Pῡ Ao GNS Science and universities in Aotearoa New Zealand have thus generated and updated conceptual models to aid in the interpretation of volcano monitoring data by the GeoNet Volcano Monitoring Group. To date, we have created six conceptual models: Ruapehu, Whakaari (White Island), Okataina, Taupō, Taranaki, and Rangitahua (Raoul Island) volcanoes; models for Tongariro/Ngauruhoe and the Auckland Volcanic Field will be developed in the near future. Our conceptual model creation methodology typically involves a workshop synthesising information on a particular volcanic system through presentations by subject matter experts followed by feedback on the derived model. Once in place, prompts are made to review the conceptual model during weekly volcano monitoring meetings to help with data interpretation during unrest. Ongoing review of our processes includes investigating the balance between including the most up-to-date (but potentially unpublished) datasets, the frequency of updates, and model accessibility. We are interested in discussing and learning how other groups develop, maintain, and use their conceptual models in volcano monitoring worldwide!