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

net/publication/270884266

Submarine Volcanism: a Review of the Constraints, Processes and Products,

and Relevance to the Cabo de Gata Volcanic Succession

Article  in  Italian Journal of Geosciences · October 2014

DOI: 10.3301/IJG.2014.46

CITATIONS READS

25 440

2 authors:

Raymond A. F. Cas Guido Giordano

Monash University (Australia) Università Degli Studi Roma Tre
254 PUBLICATIONS   7,013 CITATIONS    77 PUBLICATIONS   726 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Controlling factors of eruptive styles between the subaerial and subaqueous segments of the Late Devonian Boyd Volcanic Complex: Environmental and/or
Geochemical? View project

Analysis of Geothermal Reservoirs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raymond A. F. Cas on 19 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Author’s personal copy
Ital. J. Geosci. (Boll. Soc. Geol. It.), Vol. 133, No. 3 (2014), pp. 362-377, 9 figs. (doi: 10.3301/IJG.2014.46)
© Società Geologica Italiana, Roma 2014
Submarine Volcanism:
a Review of the Constraints, Processes and Products,
and Relevance to the Cabo de Gata Volcanic Succession
RAYMOND A.F. CAS (*) & GUIDO GIORDANO (**)
ABSTRACT
Understanding of submarine volcanism still lags behind under-
standing of subaerial volcanism for the obvious reason that erup-
tions are usually not, or only partially visible, and deposits are lar-
gely inaccessible. In addition, our understanding of the effects of the
ambient water mass and the way in which erupting magma and
water interact, and the ways in which the physical properties of the
water mass control and influence eruption styles, dispersal processes
and deposit characteristics, is still at a relatively early stage. In parti-
cular, in the past there has been a very simplistic approach to asses-
sing constraints on eruption styles using only ambient hydrostatic
pressure, whereas equally important properties such as bulk modu-
lus, compressibility, deformability, attenuation properties, thermal
conductivity, heat capacity, have not been adequately considered.
This review summarises our understanding on these issues, and
briefly summarises varying eruption conditions, styles and deposit
characteristics.
The origin of pumice deposits preserved in subaqueous settings
needs to be interpreted with care. They could represent local explo-
sive events, but could also represent pumice sourced from distant
explosive events and vents, even subaerial, and deposited by fallout
through water, the passage of pyroclastic flows into water from
subaerial vents, long distance rafting of buoyant pumice by currents,
reworking and resedimentation, and even non-explosive subaqueous
vesiculation and quench fragmentation of subaqueously erupted
lavas in shallow or even deep water.
The Miocene Cabo de Gata volcanic succession of southeastern
Spain was deposited in shallow marine environments based on inter-
bedded fossiliferous limestones, which represent periods of volcanic
hiatus. The volcanic facies are consistent with a shallow marine set-
ting, involving eruption of low volatile bearing magmas to form
andesite and dacite lava flows, domes and associated hyaloclastites,
as well as eruptions of volatile rich rhyolitic magmas that produced
pumice deposits erupted from subaerial vents or vents at water
depths that were too shallow to suppress explosive eruptions
through the effects of hydrostatic pressure, but were then reworked
and resedimented.
KEY WORDS: Submarine volcanism, effusive eruptions,
explosive eruptions, deposit types, Cabo de Gata, shal-
low marine volcanism.
INTRODUCTION
Although much is known about the eruption
processes, constraints and products of subaerial volcan-
ism, there is still much to learn about eruption processes
(*) School of Geosciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victo-
ria, Australia 3800. ray.cas@sci.monash.edu.au; tel: +613 99054897;
fax: +613 99054903.
(**) Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Università Roma TRE,
Roma, Italia. guido.giordano@uniroma3.it
and constraints associated with submarine/subaqueous
volcanism. This is in large part because most processes
cannot be observed, and many concepts are based on
interpretation of ancient deposits and on theory. Different
aspects of the topic of submarine volcanism have been
reviewed previously (e.g. MCBIRNEY, 1963, 1971; CAS,
1992; HEAD & WILSON, 2003; KOKELAAR, 1986; WHITE,
2000; WHITE et alii, 2003; WOHLETZ, 2003; ZIMANOWSKI &
BUTTNER, 2003; DOWNEY & LENTZ, 2006). This brief
review will consider some of the principles and concepts
and identify some of advances since previous reviews, as
well as some of the issues that are still not well under-
stood, in order to frame the environmental conditions that
controlled the development of the Cabo de Gata subaque-
ous volcanism. Given the magnitude of this topic, and the
constraints of space and time, this review cannot be com-
prehensive in either coverage or citation of all literature.
Those interested should refer to the above listed publica-
tions for further comprehensive coverage of the topic.
PROPERTIES OF AN AQUEOUS ENVIRONMENT
THAT AFFECT ERUPTION PROCESSES
(compared with subaerial eruption settings)
The most obvious difference between subaqueous and
subaerial volcanism is the presence of water as the ambi-
ent environmental medium in subaqueous environments.
The interaction between magma and ambient water can
produce a variety of interaction styles, processes and
deposits. The interaction may be passive, producing
coherent lava because a vapour film at the interface,
formed through stable “film boiling” (MILLS, 1984) insu-
lates the magma from more dynamic interaction. Or, col-
lapse of such an insulating vapour film can lead to direct
contact between liquid water and magma, causing either
instantaneous cooling of the magma to glass, and a signifi-
cant volume contraction, leading to in situ quench frag-
mentation (PICHLER, 1965; CAS & WRIGHT, 1987; CAS,
1992), or thermal detonation of the liquid water which
is instantaneously superheated and expands explosively
(WOHLETZ, 1986, 2003; ZIMANOWSKI & BUTTNER, 2003).
These various scenarios are controlled by the unique prop-
erties of water, and the nature of the interaction between
magma and water. MCBIRNEY (1963) and WHITE et alii
(2003) summarized some of the key physical properties of
water as an ambient fluid, which cause significant differ-
ences in eruption processes. The principal properties of
water that affect volcanic eruption processes are:
 SUBMARINE VOLCANISM: A REVIEW OF THE CONSTRAINTS, PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS 363

– thermal conductivity and heat capacity of water;

– critical point of water (and carbon dioxide);
– hydrostatic pressure gradient in a body of water;
– specific volume of water under pressure at mag-
matic temperatures;
– bulk modulus (deformability/compressibility) of
water.

THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY AND SPECIFIC HEAT CAPACITY OF

WATER AND STEAM

Water is much more thermally conductive than

air, with a thermal conductivity of seawater being
0.61 W m-1 K-1 at 25oC, and 0.68 W m-1 K-1 at 120oC,
compared with 0.025 W m-1 K-1 for air at 15°C (SHAR-
QAWY et alii, 2010). Water also has a high specific heat
capacity of 4.187 kJ kg-1 K-1, which is slightly higher
than that of seawater, compared with 1.005 kJ kg-1 K-1
for air at 15°C. Steam also has a much lower thermal
conductivity of 0.016 W m-1 K-1 at 125oC, and specific
heat capacity of 1.996 kJ kg-1 K-1 although cited
values can vary from this, depending on the state of
the steam. During submarine volca nism therefore,
there is rapid transfer and loss of heat from magma
and magma fragments to water, but the presence of
steam at the interface between the two would signifi-
cantly lower the rate of heat loss (H ÖSKULDSSON &
SPARKS, 1997).

THE CRITICAL POINT OF H2O (AND CO2)

Understanding the exsolution behaviour and potential
for explosive expansion of exsolving volatiles also
depends on the critical point behaviour of the two most
common magmatic volatiles, H2O and CO2. CO2 is pro-
bably the most abundant volatile in mafic magmas at
source, whereas H2O is more common in more evolved
silicic magmas (WALLACE & ANDERSON, 2000). In addi-
tion, understanding the behaviour of a body of water at
depth when heated to magmatic temperatures at water
depths corresponding to a high hydrostatic pressure is
also important.
The critical point of a fluid is the temperature and
pressure beyond which there is no distinction between
the liquid and gaseous phases, and the fluid is a super-
critical fluid that has the properties of both. This
property applies to water both in its magmatic volatile
state, as well as an ambient fluid in subaqueous envi-
ronments. Pure water has a critical pressure, Cp, of
about 21.8-22.1 MPa (equivalent to 2,200 m below sea
level), and a critical temperature, Ct, of 374oC (fig. 1),
whereas for seawater, Cp is about 30 MPa (equivalent to
3,000 m below sea level), and Ct is about 400oC
(WOHLETZ, 2003). The density of supercritical H2O, its
critical density, Cd, is 0.3 gm cc-1, whereas the density
of steam is about 0.0011 gm cc-1 at 120oC. For CO2, Cp
is 7.38 MPa, and Ct is 31.1oC (fig. 1). For water to
behave explosively, whether it be as magmatic gas, or
ambient water superheated to temperatures above the
critical temperature by contact with magma, it must
transform from the supercritical state to a subcritical
gas which can expand explosively instantaneously. That
occurs most easily in environments where the ambient
pressure is relatively low.
Fig. 1 - Phase diagram for the a) H2O and b) CO2 systems, showing
the triple point, T, the solid-liquid-gas fields, and the critical point,
C, for both, as a function of pressure and temperature. mp = melting
point, bp = boiling point, and sp = sublimation point (for CO2).
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE GRADIENT IN A BODY OF WATER
In subaerial settings the exsolution of volatiles in
magma is controlled by confining pressure and the
decompression of the magma as it rises to the Earth’s sur-
face in the conduit (WALLACE & ANDERSON, 2000). In the
crust, this confining pressure is lithostatic. In a body of
water the confining hydrostatic pressure should also exert
a limiting confining pressure effect on exsolution of
volatiles and the growth rate of vesicles. The hydrostatic
pressure increases with water depth, and therefore the
effect of ambient hydrostatic pressure on volatile exsolu-
tion in magmas erupted in shallow water depths will be
minimal, whereas the effects in magma erupted at signifi-
cant water depth may be enough to limit or suppress
explosions. STIX & PHILLIPS (2012) however, argue that
based on gum-rosin experiments, explosive eruptions
could readily occur at depths greater than 1,000 m, and
even several thousand metres (high ambient pressures) if
volatile contents are 4-6 wt %, and decompression and
decompression rates are high. However, while vesicula-
tion can certainly occur at such water depths, vesicula-
tion does not necessarily cause explosive fragmentation.
364 R.A.F. CAS
Fig. 2 - Specific volume of water at magmatic temperatures as
a function of pressure. Note the logarithmic scale and the rapid
increase in specific volume under low confining pressures (<10
MPa) (from MCBIRNEY, 1963).
The pressure gradient in a body of water is 105 Pa or
0.01 MPa m-1 water depth (or 10 MPa km-1 water depth),
compared with lithostatic pressure gradient of 0.0227
MPa m-1 crustal thickness (or 22.7 MPa km-1 crustal
depth). The water depth corresponding to the critical
pressure of pure water is therefore about 2,200 m,
whereas in seawater it is about 3,000 m (MCBIRNEY,
1963; SOURIRAJAN & KENNEDY, 1962). The water depth
corresponding to the CP of CO2 is 738 m. Theoretically
explosions cannot occur at depths near to or greater than
the critical point depth equivalent, which is 3 km in the
oceans. In practice, because volatiles exsolve as supercrit-
ical fluids, and must boil to form gases, and then be able
to expand rapidly to be explosive, limiting water depths
are likely to be shallower.
SPECIFIC VOLUME OF WATER
The specific volume of water (i.e. the number of cc’s
per gram) at magmatic temperatures varies enormously
as a function of pressure (MCBIRNEY, 1963; fig. 2), with
the specific volume changing greatly as confining pres-
sure decreases at low pressures (<10 MPa, equivalent to
1 km water depth), but much less so at higher pressures,
in which state it is highly compressed. At the critical
pressure, it becomes a supercritical fluid. The signifi-
& G. GIORDANO
cance of this is that when water is superheated as an
exsolved magmatic volatile or as superheated seawater at
the interface with erupting magma, its ability to expand
explosively is pressure constrained, and since explosions
represent instantaneous volume expansions, theoretically
that can only occur under relatively low pressures. Sec-
ondly, the more expanded water is (e.g. as steam) the less
efficient it becomes in transferring heat, which changes
from conduction when water is in the liquid state, to
radiation when water is in the vapour state. This is rele-
vant to considerations of whether a subaqueously erupt-
ing lava will remain coherent due to the development of
an efficient, insulating steam film during film boiling at
the interface between the hot magma and the ambient
water mass, or whether it will be subject to super-cooling
and quench fragmentation due to direct contact between
the hot magma and liquid water, as discussed further
below.
BULK MODULUS (DEFORMABILITY/COMPRESSIBILITY) OF
WATER RELATIVE TO AIR AND ROCK
Water in all its fluid states has an extremely low ten-
sile strength, it is slightly compressible, and it is a New-
tonian substance, which deforms when a stress is applied.
Both the kinematic and dynamic viscosity of seawater
decrease by a factor of 4 as water is heated to 60oC or
more, and by much more as water converts to steam
(SHARQAWY et alii, 2010). However, the deformability and
compressibility of water is substantially less than that of
air, which is relevant when considering the relative explo-
sive intensity and area affected by subaqueous explosive
eruptions relative to subaerial ones.
The bulk modulus (K; unit is Pa) of a fluid is a mea-
sure of its resistance to uniform compression or volume
change when a pressure is applied, or its incompressibil-
ity. It is defined as the pressure applied over the strain,
which is measured by the change in volume relative to the
original volume. The bulk modulus of liquid water is
2,340 MPa for seawater, and it increases with increasing
pressure, which in subaqueous environments is equiva-
lent to increasing water depth. By comparison, for air the
adiabatic bulk modulus is 0.142 MPa, meaning that air is
orders of magnitude more compressible and deformable
than water. By contrast the Young Modulus of rock (= ratio
of stress to strain below the yield point) is about 200,000
MPa. Rock is elastic up to its yield point, and has a high
level of resistance to permanent deformation. It will fail
in brittle fashion when subject to instantaneous pressure
(e.g explosion generated pressure) exceeding the yield
strength/tensile strength. Country rock that surrounds
vents will therefore absorb a limited amount of instanta-
neous strain from explosions, mostly through brittle fail-
ure of the rock, but most of the explosive energy is
directed upwards, out of the vent into the ambient fluid
medium, which is much more deformable. For this rea-
son, explosive energy release and intensity from subaerial
vents is at its maximum, much higher than from subma-
rine vents, because water is less compressible and
deformable than air. The bulk modulus of water and its
ability to attenuate explosive shock waves will act to sup-
press the intensity of subaqueous explosions if they
occur, a factor that has never been considered in previous
assessments of subaqueous explosive volcanism. The
pressure of an explosion is reduced by 80% in water com-
 SUBMARINE VOLCANISM: A REVIEW OF THE CONSTRAINTS, PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS
Fig. 3 - Experimentally determined solubility
of a) H2O and b) CO2 in silicate melts at mag-
matic temperatures as a function of pressure
(from and ANDERSON, 2000).
pared with air, and the intensity is attenuated exponen-
tially with distance away from source (RESNYANSKY &
DELANEY, 2006).
PROPERTIES OF MAGMA THAT AFFECT ITS ERUPTION
BEHAVIOUR IN SUBMARINE ENVIRONMENTS
MAGMA COMPOSITION
Most submarine volcanic eruptions are basaltic in
composition, varying from MORB, to island arc basalts,
to intra-plate alkalic compositions. It is usually only
where thickened island arc crust is involved in magma
generation that more evolved, even rhyolitic compositions
are represented (WRIGHT et alii, 2006). With this comes
increasing magma viscosity and volatile contents. Silicic
magmas have greater viscosity and strength than mafic
magmas, largely because of their higher silica content.
Dissolved magmatic water has the effect of reducing
magma viscosity, and when volatile exsolution occurs, the
magma viscosity increases.
VOLATILE CONTENTS AND THEIR SOLUBILITY IN SILICATE
MAGMAS
Oceanic basaltic magmas have low overall volatile
contents compared with more evolved magmas, with car-
bon dioxide and water being important in most cases
(HEAD & WILSON, 2003). H2O is more soluble than CO2 in
silicate melts, irrespective of composition (fig. 3). Dis-
solved volatiles are important in two ways. First they have
the potential to drive explosive eruptions if abundant
enough and if the vapour pressure they exert is suffi-
ciently high to exceed the ambient confining pressure.
Secondly, dissolved magmatic volatiles strongly influence
the viscosity of magmas, CO2 increasing magma viscosity,
or having no effect, and H2O lowering it, relative to anhy-
drous compositional equivalents. However, CO2 is much
less soluble in silicate magmas than H2O and exsolves
and separates from rising magma before and at greater
depth than does H2O (WALLACE & ANDERSON, 2000).
THERMAL ENERGY OF MAGMA
When basaltic lava at 1200°C cools to 0°C (DT =
1200°C) approximately 4.3×109 J m-3 of thermal energy is
released. By contrast rhyolitic lava at 900°C releases
approximately 2.6×109 J m-3 of thermal energy when it
cools to 0°C (DT = 900°C) (HÖSKULDSSON & SPARKS,
1997). This suggests that basaltic phreatic/phreatomag-
365
matic explosive eruptions should be more energetic than
rhyolitic ones, unless magmatic volatiles also play a part
in driving the explosive eruption. Conversely, when
magma is super-cooled by direct contact with liquid
water, it is instantaneously chilled through the glass
transition temperature, to form glass. However, this
instantaneous phase transition imposes contractional
strain on the rock, causing a network of contractional
cracks and fractures to propagate through the rock, as
the rock quench fragments to hyaloclastite breccia (CAS
& WRIGHT, 1987; MCPHIE et alii, 1993; WATTON et alii,
2013).
VISCOSITY OF MAGMAS ERUPTED IN SUBMARINE ENVIRON-
MENTS
The confining hydrostatic pressure of deep-water
environments acts to retard the exsolution of volatiles at
the eruption depths. Current thinking is that CO2, which
is many times less soluble in silicate melts than water
(fig. 3), has little effect on the viscosity of magma when
dissolved in it (WALLACE & ANDERSON, 2000). CO2 will
exsolve at depth before H2O does. Dissolved magmatic
H2O has the effect of reducing magma viscosity by break-
ing Si-O bonds. It exsolves readily under lower confining
pressures. Therefore the viscosities of magmas erupted in
deep water, where hydrostatic pressures are high, will be
significantly lower than for a compositionally identical
one erupted in shallow water, and one erupted in subaer-
ial settings from which volatiles can readily exsolve. This
will affect the rheology of erupting magmas, perhaps the
eruption style and its ability to vesiculate, given that vis-
cous strength is one of the retarding factors to volatile
exsolution, and vesicle growth (SPARKS, 1978).
Suspended solids such as crystals tends to increase
the bulk viscosity of magma at high crystal content levels
(~40%; SPERA, 2003). The effect of vesicles on magma
rheology depends largely on the competition between
shearing forces that tend to deform bubbles and the
resisting surface tension at the interface between magma
and bubble. For small bubbles, the surface tension pre-
vails, as well as where the high viscosity of magma pre-
vents development of high internal shear rates. In such
cases bubbles act more like solids and enhance viscosity.
By contrast, where bubbles are large or a magma with
vesicles is experiencing high internal shear (e.g. in a flow
banding regime, or where there is a shear gradient along
the margins of the conduit), then because the bubbles are
deformable they act as a lubricant, enhancing the shear
rate and lowering the bulk viscosity of the magma
(SPERA, 2003).
366 R.A.F. CAS
SUBMARINE ERUPTION PROCESSES,
STYLES AND THEIR PRODUCTS
As with subaerial eruptions, submarine eruptions
range from effusive and lava forming to explosive.
Although shallow water eruptions have been witnessed
and their processes and products have been studied, this
becomes more difficult in deep-water because of the
inaccessibility of submarine volcanoes, their vents and
deposits. Nonetheless, limited imagery of eruptions and
their products, combined with uplifted submarine vol-
canic rocks, and the application of physical principles
have provided a reasonably good understanding of
processes and products. However, in spite of significant
advances, our understanding of many processes and
the physical factors that affect submarine volcanism still
lags considerably behind our understanding of subaerial
volcanism.
LAVA FORMING ERUPTIONS
(a) Non-explosive interaction between magma and water
Subaerially, lava forming eruptions can be relatively
passive and effusive, or if magma viscosity is low enough
fire fountaining may feed a lava flow. Although effusive
submarine eruptions producing coherent lava flows
clearly occur, it is unclear if submarine fire fountaining
can produce coherent lava flows, or whether given the
cooling regime, chilling and even quench fragmentation
of fire fountaining magma precludes spatter reconstitu-
tion and (clastogenic) lava formation.
Coherent lava flows such as basaltic pillow lavas and
even coherent felsic lava flows and domes can be erupted
on the seafloor without explosive interaction because of
the efficient, slow cooling and insulation effects provided
by “film boiling” (MILLS, 1984; WOHLETZ, 1986; ZIMA-
NOWSKI & BUTTNER, 2003; HEAD & WILSON, 2003). If a
sustained layer or film of steam or supercritical H2O
forms at the magma-water interface, the rate of cooling of
the magma may be slow enough to allow the magma at
the interface to cool to form a coherent visco-plastic crust
that finally cools to a glassy crust. Cooling across the
vapour film is mostly by radiative heat loss, which is why
it is slow. The crust then also insulates the magma under
the crust from heat loss and direct contact with water.
Cooling contraction of the magma first to a visco-elastic
crust and then a solid crust is facilitated by plastic con-
tractional strain, hence the crust remains coherent. Once
formed, a rigid crust could be autobrecciated by the shear
force exerted by continued flow under the crust, produc-
ing coarse, blocky autobreccia (CAS, 1992).
However, the vapour film, being a dynamic fluid, may
experience natural instabilities such as Taylor and Kelvin-
Helmholtz instabilities (e.g. WOHLETZ, 1986), leading to
collapse of the film and allowing direct contact between
liquid water and magma. This would increase the cooling
rate of the magma at the interface, leading to “instanta-
neous” phase transformation from hot (~1200oC for
basalt; ~900oC for rhyolite) liquid silicate magma to solid
silicate glass at the interface at very high glass transition
(Tg) temperatures, and then cooling to ambient water
temperatures. The high cooling rates cause rapid volume
contraction, and very high contractional strain rates in
the magma/glass. As a result, brittle contractional fractur-
& G. GIORDANO
ing occurs and a network of contractional cooling cracks
propagate inwards from the surface of the magma into
the body of the magma as the magma-glass phase transi-
tion front propagates inward. The magma thus fragments
in a process called quench fragmentation, or cooling con-
traction granulation/fragmentation, due to the thermal
shock that the magma is subjected to. Using thermal
remanent magnetization studies (TRM) to determine the
temperatures at which hyaloclasts formed in the Cabo de
Gata volcanic sequence, PORRECA et alii (2014) showed
that quench fragmentation can occur in the centre of sub-
marine lavas as they continue to cool well below the glass
transition temperature, even down to temperatures of
210oC. The deposit resulting from quench fragmentation
is an aggregate of in-situ jigsaw-fit to clast-rotated glassy
debris called “hyaloclastite” (PICHLER, 1965; KOKELAAR,
1986; CAS & WRIGHT, 1987; CAS, 1992; MCPHIE et alii,
1993). Quench fragmentation per se is not explosive.
Magma may also vesiculate to high levels in subma-
rine environments without explosive fragmentation if the
vesicle growth rate is slow, caused by a low volatile over-
pressure. Highly vesicular pillow lava (e.g. >50% vesicles)
can form at depths of 4 kms, (DIXON et alii, 1997) and
highly pumiceous felsic lavas with pumiceous carapaces
can form (e.g. BINNS, 2003; ALLEN & MCPHIE, 2000;
SCUTTER et alii, 1998; ROTELLA et alii, 2013) without
explosive vesiculation or fragmentation. Whereas the
vesiculated pumiceous lava documented by BINNS (2003)
in the Woodlark Basin occurs at depths from 700-900m,
the Yali dome discussed by ALLEN & MCPHIE (2000) in
the Aegean Sea is interpreted to have erupted in relatively
shallow water, of perhaps a few hundred metres.
However, because of the dynamic nature of the
magma-water interface, explosive superheating of water
to steam may also occur, leading to phreatic to
phreatomagmatic explosive activity, as discussed below in
section 2c, especially under relatively shallow water and
low hydrostatic pressure conditions (WOHLETZ, 1986,
2003; FISKE et alii, 1998; MORRISSEY et alii, 2000; WHITE
& HOUGHTON, 2000; ZIMANOWSKI & BUTTNER, 2003).
Given the high thermal energy of magma and the high
thermal conductivity and heat capacity of water, boiling
and superheating of water is easily achieved.
(b) Coherent lavas and autoclastically fragmented lava
flows
CAS & WRIGHT (1987), CAS (1992), MCPHIE et alii
(1993) and BATIZA & WHITE (2000) have reviewed the
characteristics of submarine lavas, including low aspect
ratio basaltic pillow and massive sheet lavas to high
aspect ratio silicic lava flows and domes. Needless to say,
with increasing silica content and viscosity, lava flow
thicknesses increase from low aspect ratio basaltic lavas
to thicker intermediate andesite lavas, to very thick, high
aspect ratio silicic lava domes and flows. In addition, as
SiO2 content and viscosity increase, the tendency for sub-
marine lavas to experience autobrecciation and quench
fragmentation increases. However, if significant mag-
matic volatiles are retained and do not exsolve due to the
confining hydrostatic pressure at significant water depth,
the viscosity of submarine lavas will be lower than for
subaerial counterparts, and the flow mobility will be
higher, and their aspect ratio should be lower than for
subaerial counterparts.
 SUBMARINE VOLCANISM: A REVIEW OF THE CONSTRAINTS, PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS 367

Basaltic lavas vary from completely coherent to vari- in intensity with increasing water depth (MCBIRNEY, 1963;
ably quench fragmented pillow (e.g. fig. 4a) to massive PECKOVER et alii, 1973; KOKELAAR, 1986; CAS & WRIGHT,
sheet flows. Almost all andesitic to silicic lavas have mar- 1987; CAS, 1992; ZIMANOWSKI & BUTTNER, 2003).
ginal hyaloclastite and autobreccia, noted by transitions
from the coherent core, to an in-situ jigsaw-fit breccia to (a) Magmatic explosions
variably clast-rotated breccia textures (e.g. PICHLER,
Magmatic volatile exsolution occurs when a magma
1965; SORIANO et alii, 2013). Quench fragmentation can
rises to the Earth’s surface through lower lithostatic con-
produce finely granulated, glassy matrix between larger,
fining pressure domains, decompresses and becomes
often polygonal clasts (fig. 4b), Quench fragmentation
supersaturated with volatiles (SPARKS, 1978). In a subma-
of pumiceous carapaces can produce large volumes of
rine conduit, the hydrostatic pressure associated with
pumice hyaloclastite breccia with jig-saw fit to clast
water depth adds another confining pressure constraint
rotated texture (KUROKAWA, 1991; SCUTTER et alii, 1998;
on exsolution, and even if vesiculation occurs, to the
BINNS, 2003). Therefore pumice breccias in submarine
growth rate of vesicles formed. A magma erupting on the
settings may also be autoclastic in origin, not necessarily
deep seafloor is less likely to have experienced the same
explosive, and great care is required in distinguishing
level of H2O exsolution and vesiculation as a subaerially
pumice of different origins.
erupting, compositionally identical counterpart. How-
Lava forming eruptions can produce contemporane-
ever, basaltic magmas erupting in deep-water of several
ous or post-eruptive aprons or deltas of debris, including
kilometres may have retained some of their CO2 content,
spatter clast breccias to variably bedded aggregates of
whereas subaerial counterparts are likely to have
largely monomictic, lava derived breccias, some of which
degassed most CO2 by the time they reach the Earth’s sur-
are syn-eruptive resedimented hyaloclastite to post-erup-
face (HEAD & WILSON, 2003; DIXON et alii, 1997; CLAGUE
tive gravitational mass-flow talus apron or hyaloclastite
et alii, 2009). HEAD & WILSON (2003) propose that CO2
delta deposits resulting from grain flow, debris flow and
driven explosive eruptions of basalts are possible on the
turbidity current resedimentation (WATTON et alii, 2013;
deep sea floor, but the eruption columns are likely to be
fig. 5). Such aprons can be sourced from submarine lava
of limited magnitude. DOWNEY & LENTZ (2006) and STIX
cone or shield volcanic edifices, or from the passage of
& PHILLIPS (2012) argue that major explosive eruptions
subaerially erupted lavas entering the sea, building pro-
are possible at any water depth if the volatile content is
grading shoreline to subaqueous lava-hyaloclastite deltas
high, arguing that water depth and hydrostatic pressure
(WATTON et alii, 2013 and references therein).
have little effect in suppressing them. By contrast we
Peperite, which is a specific type of hyaloclastite, may
argue that explosivity and its intensity are not only con-
form in any setting where magma is intruding, or lava is
trained by volatile exsolution but very importantly by
flowing over, water-saturated, unconsolidated sediments.
properties of water, including the effects of the bulk mo-
Peperite results from the quench fragmentation of the
dulus, or relative incompressibility of water in constrain-
magma by the pore water in the sediments, and the
ing the intensity of any explosions that occur. RESNYAN-
simultaneous heating of the pore water, which begins to
SKY & DELANEY (2006) demonstrated that the intensity of
convect and then dynamically mixes the juvenile clasts
an explosion is reduced by 80% when it occurs in water
and the host sediment (CAS & WRIGHT, 1987; BUSBY-
compared with air, and the intensity is rapidly attenuated
SPERA & WHITE, 1987; MCPHIE et alii, 1993; SKILLING et
with increasing distance from source. Explosions at
alii, 2002). Peperite deposits are therefore chaotic mix-
depths to 1,000 m or even more seem feasible given a
tures of sediment and dispersed hyaloclasts, which grade
high enough magma volatile content, but beyond those
into jigsaw-fit assemblages of hyaloclasts with injected
depths, especially approaching the critical pressure water
veinlets of sediment between hyaloclasts, to jigsaw-fit
depths, most explosive events will be significantly sup-
hyaloclastite, and then into coherent lava or intrusive
pressed, as verified by the empirical observations by
rock. Without these gradational contact relationships,
I.C Wright in the Kermadec arc north of New Zealand on
peperite by itself could be mistaken for a poorly sorted,
the transition depth from explosive to effusive eruptions
chaotic debris flow deposit. Peperite will only occur at the
(e.g. WRIGHT et alii, 2006, p. 291).
base of submarine lavas, but may occur around all mar-
gins of a syn-depositional intrusion into wet sediment.
(b) Phreatomagmatic explosions
The form of the juvenile clasts will depend on both
magma rheology and the granulometry of the sediment, Phreatic/phreatomagmatic explosions result from the
with fluidal clasts being more common where magma vis- instantaneous explosive superheating and detonation of
cosity was low and sediment grain size was fine, and external water by magma that it comes in direct contact
blocky forms where magma viscosity was relatively high, with, when stable vapour films collapse. The sudden con-
and/or where the host sediment was coarse and granular tact between liquid water and hot magma, and the rapid
(BUSBY-SPERA & WHITE, 1987). heat transfer to the water causes instantaneous thermal
detonation of the water (WOHLETZ, 1986, 2003; MORRIS-
SEY et alii, 2000; WHITE & HOUGHTON, 2000; ZIMANOWSKI
EXPLOSIVE SUBMARINE ERUPTIONS AND RESULTANT PRO-
DUCTS
& BUTTNER, 2003). Explosive expansion of superheated
seawater is also affected by confining pressure, and so,
Submarine explosive eruptions can be driven by with increasing water depths, it should become less com-
exsolving magmatic volatiles and/or by the explosive mon as the vapour film at the interface becomes more
super-heating of the seawater that an erupting magma is compressed and denser (ZIMANOWSKI & BUTTNER, 2003).
on contact with. However, given the physical properties of According to PECKOVER et alii (1973) and ZIMANOWSKI &
water bodies, especially with increasing water depth, such BUTTNER (2003), phreatic/phreatomagmatic explosions
explosive eruptions are likely to be increasingly restricted are highly unlikely at depths of more than a few hundred
368 R.A.F. CAS & G. GIORDANO

c)

a)

d)

b)
Fig. 4 - a) Quench fragmented pillow lava, Miocene Green Tuff Belt,
Shakotan Peninsula, Hokkaido, Japan; b) Transition from coherent
andesite to in-situ jig-saw fit hyaloclastite to variably clast rotated
with increasing granulated matrix hyaloclastite breccia, Miocene El
Barronal Andesite lava sequnce, Playa del Barronal, Cabo de Gata,
Spain. Exposure height is about 3 m; c) Lobe of In situ quench frag-
mented jig-saw fit andesite hyaloclastite breccia, enclosed in more
intensely fragmented hyaloclastite breccia, Miocene El Barronal An-
desite lava sequence, Playa del Barronal, Cabo de Gata, Spain. Lobe
has a width of about 1 m; d) Pervasively quench-fragmented andesite
hyaloclastite breccia grading (right) into fractured and jointed lobes
of andesite, and in sharp contact (left) with a jointed andesite (fee-
der?) dyke. Miocene El Barronal Andesite lava sequence, Playa del
Barronal, Cabo de Gata, Spain. Cliff has a height of 5 m; e) Apparen-
tly layered andesite hyaloclastite breccia and sandstone, with irregu-
lar jig-saw fit breccia lobes and pods (dark) alternating with much
more finely fragmented hyaloclastite sandstone. The layering could
reflect an original flow banding fabric. Miocene El Barronal Andesi-
te lava sequence, Playa del Barronal, Cabo de Gata, Spain. e)
 SUBMARINE VOLCANISM: A REVIEW OF THE CONSTRAINTS, PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS
metres because of the effects of increasing hydrostatic
pressure in eliminating the stable film boiling regime that
is a prerequisite to thermo-hydraulic detonation of explo-
sions. At greater pressures (= depths) than the critical
pressure for seawater (30 MPa = 3,000m), explosive (i.e.
instantaneous) expansion of superheated water is theoret-
ically unlikely.
Phreatomagmatic explosions tend to be pulsatory in
style, characterised by a succession of closely spaced
explosions, thought to reflect cyclical molten fuel-coolant
interaction (MFCI) between erupting magma and an
external water source (WOHLETZ, 1986), and visibly
reflected by spectacular tephra jets, often led by very
large ballistic blocks, and base suges bursting from the
vent. In shallow seas and lakes this produces the iconic
Surtseyan eruption style and tuff cones. This waxing and
waning of explosive energy release suggests that a
phreatomagmatic explosive eruption is unlikely to be sus-
tained and not very intense in water depths more than a
few hundred metres (ZIMANOWSKI & BUTTNER, 2003).
Empirical observations by I.C. WRIGHT during
decades of seminal research on the volcanology of the
submarine to subaerial Kermadec island arc system,
extending north of New Zealand (e.g. WRIGHT, 1996;
WRIGHT & GAMBLE, 1999; WRIGHT et alii, 2002, 2003,
2006; BARKER et alii, 2012, 2013), led him to propose that
for different volcanoes, between depths of 450 and 1,500 m,
there is a transition from explosive to non-explosive vol-
canic activity respectively, depending on magma compo-
sition, with deeper transitional depths involving more
evolved arc magmas, including rhyolite magmas gener-
ated by fractional crystallization of basaltic magmas
(BARKER et alii, 2013). The empirical observations behind
this include the transition from water depths where pyro-
clastic pumice deposits derived from shallower water
vents occur, whereas at greater depths lavas predominate.
Wright indicates in his papers that a clear hydrostatic
pressure constraint due to increasing water depth limits
explosive volcanic eruptions on Kermadec arc volcanoes.
WRIGHT et alii (2006, p. 291) state: “The general parame-
ters for submarine pyroclastic eruption hold where water-
depths are < 1000 m and erupting magmas have 5-6 wt.%
water and 70 wt.% SiO2”.
However, evidence for some local deep-water (> 1,000 m)
explosive activity exists (e.g. HEAD & WILSON, 2003;
WHITE et alii, 2003; CLAGUE et alii, 2009), requiring
processes that produce local decompression to well below
the critical point of pure water and sea-water. HEAD &
WILSON (2003) suggest that because CO2 is less soluble in
silicate melts than H2O, it is probably driving such deep
water explosions from basaltic magmas, which is even
more puzzling given that the critical point of CO2 is signif-
icantly less (only one third) than that of water. WOHLETZ
(1986, 2003) proposed that decompressional shock waves
could produce instantaneous rarefaction conditions that
may permit volcanic explosions at depths greater than the-
oretically expected. Earthquakes, or ironically, explosive
shock waves (chicken or egg dilemma?) could conceivably
generate rarefaction waves around a vent.
The dynamic and kinematic viscosity of water is
reduced at high pressures and temperatures (e.g. SHA-
RQAWY et alii, 2010), making it more deformable, which
could facilitate some explosive release above a vent. Fur-
thermore, substantial vaporisation of ambient water or
the presence of abundant steam bubbles above an erupt-
369
Fig. 5 - Resedimented, monomictic basaltic andesite hyaloclastite
breccia forming a bedded submarine apron of debris around an
eruption centre, Miocene, Green Tuff Belt, Kabuto Cape, Hokkaido,
Japan.
ing vent will reduce the density of water above the vent,
which will reduce the hydrostatic pressure gradient and
the bulk modulus of steam rich water above a vent. Hot
gas bubbles however will lose heat to surrounding water
and condense as they rise buoyantly above the vent, limit-
ing the height of a submarine gas/vapour eruption col-
umn above a vent in submarine settings (HEAD & WIL-
SON, 2003). However, the very high bulk modulus of
water and the attenuating effects of water on explosive
shock waves, will ensure that any explosions that do
occur are reduced in intensity relative to a subaerial
equivalent. We also don’t understand the dynamics of jets
of one fluid (e.g. a hot magmatic fire fountain) into
another (e.g. submarine aqueous mass) in terms of the
pressure regime this may induce.
On balance, it seems that the laws of physics mitigate
against major explosive eruptions in very deep water
(> several kms), but some relatively low intensity strom-
bolian-like activity and fire fountaining do occur (CLAGUE
et alii, 2009; HEAD & WILSON, 2003), indicating that some
as yet poorly understood form of decompression can
occur in some circumstances.
(c) Submarine eruption columns
The behavior of subaqueous explosive eruption
columns have not been well studied, let alone comprehen-
sively numerically modeled, as have subaerial eruption
columns. The only known attempts to quantify aspects of
the dynamics of submarine eruption columns are those of
KANO et alii (1996) and HEAD & WILSON (2003). Subma-
rine fire fountains are likely to behave in a similar man-
ner as subaerial ones because both involve a dense jet of
magma liquid injecting a less dense ambient fluid. HEAD
& WILSON (2003) have however shown that deep-water
fire fountains are likely to be lower than subaerial coun-
terparts because of the properties of the water mass.
For eruption columns driven by exsolved magmatic
volatiles that are either in a supercritical fluid state or
have boiled to gas, eruption columns will initially be buoy-
ant in the high-density ambient water mass. However, the
cooling effects of an ambient water mass on rising, hot
bubbles of supercritical H2O or steam would be to cause
rapid cooling and condensation, especially around the
370 R.A.F. CAS
Fig. 6 - Dynamics of explosive relatively shallow explosive eruption
column, showing a complex interaction between the erupting explo-
sive plume and the water mass. Large clasts are dispersed by a com-
bination of ballistic fallout, buoyant flotation if they are vesiculated.
Smaller clast populations are entrained in the rising gas-steam-pyro-
clast plume, which is subject to condensation of gases and mixing in
of ambient water, and readily collapses to produce a hot to cooling
mass-flow of pyroclastic debris, steam and water (from KANO et alii,
1996, based on interpretation of the Holocene Shinjima Pumice
deposit, Japan).
margins of the steam rich column as well as turbulent
mixing of the gaseous column and pyroclasts with the cold
water mass, will lead to the demise of the eruption column
(KANO et alii, 1996; HEAD & WILSON, 2003), through what
could be called “condensation erosion”. However, even a
hot column of water is less dense than cold water and
should rise, entraining clasts whose settling velocity in
water is less than the rise velocity of the water. Nonethe-
less, it seems that subaqueous eruption columns would be
constrained and less dynamic than subaerial counterparts
(HEAD & WILSON, 2003), although this is an area for sig-
nificant research, especially through numerical modeling.
Deposition from subaqueous eruption columns will
involve diminished ballistic dispersal, hindered settling
fallout, and mass flow collapse of the eruption column
once water has been ingested, generating hot to cold mass
flows of pyroclastic debris (KANO et alii, 1996; fig. 6).
(d) Submarine fallout processes
The behaviour of pyroclasts in a submarine explosive
eruption column will be complex and depend of their
density, whether the ambient medium they are entrained
in is low density gas-steam, or higher density water, and
the concentration of pyroclasts in this fluid medium. The
concentration of pyroclasts will determine if they behave
as independent particles (e.g. CASHMAN & FISKE, 1991),
or as bulk density currents or masses (KANO et alii, 1996;
CAREY, 1997). At low particle concentrations, the behav-
& G. GIORDANO
iour of fragments will be controlled by their individual
hydraulic behaviour relative to the density and velocity of
the ambient fluid. Where bulk mass flow behaviour
occurs, the bulk density of the pyroclast-fluid mix and its
upward velocity relative to density of seawater will influ-
ence if it behaves buoyantly and rises, or if there is a den-
sity overload, it collapses and forms a density current or
underflow. Thus, during an explosive submarine erup-
tion, the state of the eruption column and the behaviour
of pyroclasts may change very rapidly.
WHITHAM & SPARKS (1990) and ALLEN et alii (2008)
demonstrated that if hot vesicular pumice is released into
water, cooling and contraction of volatiles in the vesicles
due to the cooling effects of the water mass will cause
water to be drawn into the inter-connected vesicles, lead-
ing to the pumice becoming water-logged and less buoy-
ant. KANO et alii (1996), ALLEN et alii (2008) and ALLEN &
MCPHIE (2009) suggest that this would make subaqueous
eruption columns more prone to collapse gravitationally
than subaerial counterparts. On the other hand pyroclasts
are more buoyant in water than in air because of the
lower density contrast between solids and water than
between solids and air.
CASHMAN & FISKE (1991) proposed a model for the
formation of submarine pyroclastic fallout deposits,
focusing on the extremely efficient hydraulic sorting that
is facilitated by the settling of pyroclasts of varying den-
sity through the water column. They found that the ratio
of the diameter of water-saturated vesiculated pumice
clasts to dense lithic clasts in subaqueous fallout deposits
ranged from 5 to 10, whereas for subaerial fallout
deposits, the ratio ranged from 2 to 3. This was based on
both laboratory experiments and field measurements
from submarine fallout deposits of the Miocene-Pliocene
Shirahama Group in Japan. This is a valuable guide for
well-documented, exposed deposits where field character-
istics can be used to establish context and also assess
mesoscopic textures to assess the likelihood of a fallout
origin for such deposits.
For modern seafloor pumice deposits however, care
needs to be taken to use such a ratio as the sole criterion
for determining the origin. In deep subaqueous settings
pumice deposits could have been rafted by oceanic cur-
rents long distances from source before becoming water
logged and settling, or could be resedimented from shal-
low water settings or even from subaerial environments
post-eruptively, or even be derived from subaerial volca-
noes, unknown distances from the site of deposition.
Without similar clast ratio data for deposits of these
diverse origins, the data from CASHMAN & FISKE (1993),
although indicative and helpful, is not definitive.
Nonetheless, water settled fallout deposits should be bet-
ter hydraulically sorted than subaerial counterparts, as
demonstrated by CASHMAN & FISKE (1991). CAREY (1997)
pointed out that when the concentration of pyroclasts
deposited onto the sea-surface reaches a threshold, parti-
cle cease to behave as individual particles, but aggregates
may begin to behave as inverse plumes, and descend to
the seafloor as dense plumes that can then spread as
bottom flowing density currents.
(e) Submarine pyroclastic flows and related mass-flow den-
sity currents
Scenarios whereby syn-eruptive flows of pyroclastic
debris could be erupted into water or flow into water
 SUBMARINE VOLCANISM: A REVIEW OF THE CONSTRAINTS, PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS
from subaerial vents have been reviewed by CAS &
WRIGHT (1987, 1991). WHITE (2000) supplemented this
work by focusing on density currents fed directly from
subaqueous eruptions. Density currents may be hot and
gas-supported or evolve into, or begin as water-supported
mass flows of various types. Welding in subaqueous envi-
ronments is relatively rare, and confined to deposits near
vent, involving high mass flux and/or extremely large vol-
ume events whereby presumably a gas or steam envelope
insulates the flow system from direct interaction with
liquid water, so retaining heat in the deposit long enough
to weld (e.g SCHNEIDER et alii, 1992; KESSEL & BUSBY,
2003). A basic question regarding subaqueous pyroclastic
flows is: shouldn’t most gas-supported subaqueous flows
be buoyant and float upwards?
Commonly however, syn-eruptive mixing-in of water
occurs, leading to syn-eruptive transformation from gas-
supported flow systems to water-supported mass-flows,
such as (mega)turbidity currents. Alternatively, post-erup-
tive resedimentation of large volumes of cold pyroclastic
debris occurs by water-supported mass flows such as
debris flows and (mega) turbidity currents. It appears
that water supported mass flow deposits are better
hydraulically sorted than primary gas supported pyrocla-
stic flow deposits (CAS & WRIGHT, 1991; CAS, 1992), grad-
ing from a grain-supported facies at the base, with very
little fine matrix, to a fines rich top. Subaerial pyroclastic
flow deposits are not so well and continuously hydrauli-
cally sorted.
One of the most recent studies of the passage of pyro-
clastic flows into water was the study of TROFIMOVS et alii
(2006, 2008), who studied the nature of the off-shore
deposits resulting from the passage of pyroclastic flows
from Montserrat into the sea. They found that the subaer-
ial pyroclastic flows transformed into water supported
turbidity currents upon entry into the sea, although parts
of the ash clouds were able to flow over water for a lim-
ited distance. The offshore deposits had the facies charac-
teristics of turbidites.
(f) Submarine fire fountaining
Many examples of submarine fire fountain spatter
deposits are recorded in the literature from both the mod-
ern seafloor and ancient submarine rock successions (e.g.
SMITH & BATIZA, 1989; SIMPSON & MCPHIE, 2001; CAS et
alii, 2003; DAVIS & CLAGUE, 2003), with known occur-
rences at depths down to at least 2,000 m (SMITH &
BATIZA, 1989; DAVIS & CLAGUE, 2003). HEAD & WILSON
(2003) suggest that at depths of several kms, submarine
fire fountains of basaltic magmas are driven mostly by
CO2. They make a mistake in assuming that magma frag-
mentation in a fire fountain can only occur when the level
of vesiculation is 75% and that it involves gas bubble
bursting. The mechanism driving fire fountains and frag-
mentation at these depths remains unclear. It seems
unlikely that vesicle expansion at explosive rates will
occur at those depths, given that both CO2 and H2O will
be compressed supercritical fluids, not gases. The spatter
clasts described by CAS et alii (2003) at Ryugazaki, Japan,
are very poorly vesicular, indicating that bubble expan-
sion and vesiculation to levels of 75% did not cause frag-
mentation of the magma in the fountain. However, even
bubbles of supercritical CO2 and H2O would render the
basaltic magma less dense than the oceanic crust, and
given the low viscosity of submarine basalt magmas, the
371
fire fountains could be driven purely by buoyancy, exiting
the vent as a dense, weakly vesiculated (<20%), low vis-
cosity magma jet. As proposed by CAS et alii (2003), above
the vent the fire fountain would expand and flare, and
fragmentation of the fire fountain magma could be due to
a combination of shearing due to differential velocity
between the margins and centre of the fountain, exten-
sion as the fountain expands sideways above the vent,
and quench fragmentation of the fountain magma and
spatter clasts, especially at the periphery of the fountain
(fig. 7a).
With high to moderate height fountains, the larger
surface area of the fountain, and the higher degree of
expansion out of the vent will ensure more interaction
with the water mass leading to higher degrees of quench
fragmentation of the magma and ejected spatter clasts
(fig. 7a,b). With lower fountains there will be a high pro-
portion of large spatter clasts to matrix because there has
been less interaction with the water mass (fig. 7c). The
Ryugazaki deposits include variable proportions of fluidal
spatter clasts, but are dominated by abundant finer
matrix of glassy granules, resulting from quench frag-
mentation of the magma and spatter fragments in the fire
fountain (CAS et alii, 2003; fig. 7a,d). Some of the spatter
clasts are truncated by quench fracture surfaces and con-
tain an internal network of quench fractures (fig. 7d).
(g) Deep submarine equivalents of Strombolian/Vulcanian
style eruptions
DEARDOFF et alii (2011) have proposed that the
weakly explosive submarine eruption of NW Rota V vol-
cano in the Marianas arc in 2006 at water depths of
550 m was similar in style to strombolian explosions from
subaerial volcanoes. The eruption, which was spectacu-
larly imaged from a submersible, varied from lava effu-
sion, to gas streaming to explosive bursts, producing
weak buoyant plumes rising 10’s of metres above the vent
(fig. 8). Juvenile pyroclasts and recycled debris were
deposited close to the vent. The vesicularity of juvenile
pyroclasts varied from 0 to 38%, suggesting that these
vesicles were not the cause of the explosions. Fragmenta-
tion probably resulted from both explosive fragmentation
of very large gas bubbles, and by cooling quenching gran-
ulation.
CLAGUE et alii (2009, and numerous earlier publica-
tions) and DAVIS & CLAGUE (2003) have also documented
the deposits of other submarine strombolian style erup-
tions on the modern ocean floor. Little is known about
the dispersal patterns and distances of these modern sub-
marine examples.
(h) Shallow water Surtseyan explosive eruptions
This eruption phenomenon has been well reviewed by
WHITE & HOUGHTON (2000). During the iconic eruption
of the monogenetic Surtsey tephra cone volcano offshore
from Iceland from 1962-1964, which began in water
depths of just 140m, the pulsing, phreatomagmatic explo-
sive style built a tephra cone above sea level in just a few
days (THORARINSSON et alii, 1964). Since then this style of
eruption (KOKELAAR, 1983) is recognised as a typical
phreatomagmatic explosive eruption style to be expected
in relatively shallow water, such as marine shelf depths
and in lakes. The deposits that make up surtseyan tuff
cones are bedded, include subaerial and subaqueous fall-
out deposits, base surge deposits, abundant ballistic
372 R.A.F. CAS & G. GIORDANO

(d)

Fig. 7 - a) Model for submarine fire fountain and fragmentation

processes, highlighting the expanding flaring fountain of magma
above the vent and the cooling quenching interaction with the am-
bient water around the margins of the fountain; b) Depicting the
greater degree of quench fragmentation in high fountain compared
with c) low degrees of quench fragmentation in a low fountain
d) Spatter clasts with low vesicularity in an abundant matrix of
blocky quench fragmented granules in stratified submarine fire
fountain deposits, Miocene, Green Tuff Belt, Ryugazaki, Hokkaido,
Japan. Note the network of internal fractures inside the spatter
clasts, and the chilled black glassy rim of the central spatter clast
(from CAS et alii, 2003).
 SUBMARINE VOLCANISM: A REVIEW OF THE CONSTRAINTS, PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS 373

deposits, poorly studied lateral tephra jet lobate deposits,

and sometimes, small lava flows, all reflecting the cone
building eruption stage. In the subaqueous realm, a con-
siderable bedded resedimented apron of deposits is typi-
cal, often with discordances and channels. These deposits
include tabular to channelized variably normally and
reverse graded beds of lapilli-tuff, massive beds, and vari-
ably cross-bedded and symmetrical ripple bedded hori-
zons, with varying admixed proportions of fossiliferous
debris. They result from syn-eruptive to post-eruptive sec-
tor collapse, debris flows and turbidity current resedi-
mentation, and shallow marine wave planation of the
subaerial to wave-base depth part of the edifice (e.g. CAS
et alii, 1989; WHITE & HOUGHTON, 2000; BRAND &
WHITE, 2007; BRAND & CLARKE, 2009).

(i) Submarine equivalent of plinian (Neptunian) explosive

eruptions
ALLEN & MCPHIE (2008) proposed that if plinian
intensity eruptions in subaerial settings were to occur in
subaqueous settings they would be significantly modified
in style and deposit characteristics. They proposed the
term “Neptunian” for such eruptions, and considered the
differences to be due to the effects of hydrostatic pressure
and the cooling effects of ambient ocean waters. They
proposed that pyroclast dispersal involved a combination
of flotational buoyant rise of some pyroclasts, especially
large pumiceous blocks with hot, gas rich interiors, fall-
out (see below) and collapse of columns due to the cool-
ing effects of water on pyroclasts and condensation of
their internal gases, making them dense and prone to col-
lapse (fig. 6). They produced a model based on KANO et
alii (1996) and KANO (2003) (fig. 6). Deposits include
large rafted and settled pumiceous blocks, submarine fall-
out deposits, and hot to cold syn-eruptive pumiceous
mass-flow deposits. Fragmentation mechanisms can vary
from spalled blocks from erupting submarine domes, to
explosively fragmented and quench fragmented pumi-
ceous debris. The explosive component is driven both by
exsolving magmatic volatiles and explosive superheating
of seawater.
(j) Tangaroan non-explosive rafted pumice fallout deposits
ROTELLA et alii (2013) proposed that pumice deposits
sampled on the seafloor for up 25 km around Macauley
volcano in the Kermadec arc, originated from the non-
explosive detachment or spalling of highly vesiculated
rafts of pumice from vesiculating magma emerging from
a submarine vent. They called this style eruption activity
Tangaroan. As these hot spalled pumice rafts detached
and floated away from the vent, they were subject to vary-
ing degrees of quench fragmentation into smaller clasts,
dispersal by currents and fallout. The high levels of vesi-
culation (up to 90%) are the result of slow steady, non-
explosive exsolution and vesicle growth at low gas over-
pressures relative to the ambient hydrostatic pressure. In
some ways this is equivalent to the coherent, non-explo-
sive pumice domains found in many subaerial rhyolitic
lavas, although there is no indication at Macauley that a
lava dome had formed. This deposit highlights the impor-
tance of caution being required in the interpretation of
pumice deposits found on the seafloor – they are not
always in situ pyroclastic fallout deposits resulting from a
significant explosive submarine eruption.
Fig. 8 - Small, pulsing strombolian-vulcanian explosive plume rising
above the vent of NW Rota V volcano, at a depth of 550 m, Marianas
arc, 2006 (from DEARDOFF et alii, 2011).
(k) Submarine caldera forming scale explosive eruptions
Although not witnessed, caldera scale submarine
explosive eruptions are known to have occurred from
modern arc systems and are also recorded in the geologi-
cal record by virtue of well preserved submarine calderas
and their very thick caldera filling ignimbrite deposits.
Submarine explosive calderas are now well documented
from several arc systems, including the Kermadec arc
north of New Zealand (e.g. WRIGHT et alii, 1999, 2003,
2006; BARKER et alii, 2012), and the Izu-Bonin and Maria-
nas arc system (e.g. FISKE et alii, 2001; YUASA & KANO,
2003). Although some are almost certainly the result of
major catastrophic collapse associated with an explosive
eruption, WRIGHT & GAMBLE (1999) have suggested that
some Kermadec calderas could have resulted from incre-
mental collapses involving both explosive and effusive
eruptions. Many ancient submarine explosive calderas
and their deposits are well documented in the literature
(e.g. BUSBY-SPERA, 1984a,b, 1986; HOWELLS et alii, 1986;
KESSEL & BUSBY, 2003), with large volume, caldera fill
ignimbrites, some highly welded, making up the majority
of the deposits. The mechanism for eruption and frag-
mentation appears to be similar to subaerial calderas.
Therefore, to ensure heat retention and welding in the
erupting pyroclastic deposits, they must have been
shielded from direct interaction with the ambient water
mass. This could be achieved by high mass and volumet-
ric eruption rates, and the development of a gaseous and
or steam cupola (equivalent to large scale film boiling?)
above the vent and the discharging pyroclastic mass fill-
ing the caldera (e.g. KOKELAAR & BUSBY, 2000). Most
explosive calderas appear to occur in depths of up to
374 R.A.F. CAS
1 km, although some deeper ones have been interpreted.
The Ordovician Lower Rhyolitic Tuff caldera in North
Wales probably formed in continental shelf water depths
of several hundred metres at most, based on the palaeo-
ecology of fossils in the associated sedimentary rocks
(HOWELLS et alii, 1986). KESSEL & BUSBY (2003) used
fluid inclusions from VMS sulphide deposits to determine
the water depth of the Ordovician Bald Mountain caldera
in Maine, USA, at >1.45 km water depth.
REWORKING AND RESEDIMENTATION OF VOLCANIC CLASTS
CAS & WRIGHT (1987), STOW et alii (1998) and CAREY
& SCHNEIDER (2011) have summarised the spectrum of
transport processes and deposit characteristics that occur
when volcanic materials are transported into subaqueous
environments from subaerial and shallow water settings.
The principal agents of resedimentation into deep water
are grainflows, turbidity currents, debris flows, subma-
rine landslides and debris avalanches (fig. 9a,b,c). Distin-
guishing primary deposits from ones that have resulted
from syn-eruptive to post-eruptive reworking and resedi-
mentation of primary, juvenile volcaniclastic deposits can
be very difficult. This is especially the case in modern
seafloor settings, where access is limited and visual expo-
sure of deposits, their textures, contact relationships and
extent are lacking, and where the resedimented deposits
consist of exactly the same components as the primary
volcanic source materials.
As already discussed, and by way of examples of this
point, pumice deposits deposited in deep-water could
have resulted from non-explosive spalling of erupting
vesicular magma (e.g. ROTELLA et alii, 2013), submarine
fallout from a submarine explosive eruption (CASHMAN
& FISKE, 1993), rafted transport by currents of either
spalled pumice or pyroclastic pumice varying distances
from source, from proximal (ROTELLA et alii, 2013) to
sometimes thousands of kms (e.g. from the Tonga arc to
Australia, BRYAN et alii, 2006, 2012), submarine fallout
from a subaerial explosive eruption, transport by either
subaqueously or subaerially originated pyroclastic flows
into deeper water, post-eruptive reworking and resedi-
mentation of pumice deposits from shallow to deeper
water by shallow water currents, and mass-flows rang-
ing from grain-flows to turbidity currents to debris
flows and debris avalanches (CAREY & SCHNEIDER,
2011; fig. 9d).
RELEVANCE TO THE CABO DE GATA VOLCANIC SUCCESSION
Recently published papers, (and in this issue), have
re appraised the volcanic geology, setting and volcanic
eruption processes that formed the Miocene Cabo de
Gata volcanic succession of south eastern Spain (SORIA-
NO et alii, 2012, 2013, this issue; PORRECA et alii, 2014).
SORIANO et alii (this issue) interpret the whole Cabo de
Gata succession as having accumulated in a shallow
marine environment, ranging from above to below wave
base, based on several fossiliferous carbonate and silici-
clastic sedimentary horizons that are intercalated within
the volcanic lithofacies.
The volcanic deposits range from coherent to frag-
mented lavas and lava domes (fig. 4) to monomictic angu-
& G. GIORDANO
lar block breccias (fig. 9a,b,c) to pumice lithic clast brec-
cias (fig. 9d) and stratified pumiceous ash sediments.
The best exposed quench fragmented, hyaloclastic,
andesite thick lava flows are exposed along the coast in
the southern part of the Cabo de Gata volcanic zone and
form the El Barronal Formation (SORIANO et alii, 2013).
There, hyaloclastite is largely jig-saw fit throughout sig-
nificant thicknesses of the piled-up lava units, demon-
strating that quench fragmentation may occur at very
late stages or after flow stopped. PORRECA et alii (2014)
suggested that this is due to a combination of prolonged
stability of the insulating vapour film during flow and
quench fragmentation continuing well below the glass
transition temperature.
Extensive fragmentation of subaqueous volcanics also
favours gravitational instabilities and resedimentation
downslope at growing domes. The Cabo de Gata volcanic
succession shows a wide range of resedimented volcani-
clastic deposits that range from small volume granular
flows, to turbidites, to debris avalanches. SORIANO et alii
(2012) describe the dacitic Los Frailes Formation in the
central part of the Cabo de Gata volcanic zone, where
some of the lava domes may have been emergent above
sea level, and were the sources of massive matrix- to
clast-supported monomictic breccias and megabreccias
with individual block up to more than 20 m across, which
have been interpreted as debris avalanche deposits. Some
breccias contain large numbers of radially jointed blocks
(e.g. fig. 9b) indicating they were partly hot when they
were formed. This raises the possibility that some could
have been block and ash flows resulting from syn eruptive
lava dome collapse.
In addition to the dominant effusive style associated
with the various volcanic centres of the Cabo de Gata
volcanic zone, explosive activity is also represented by
several distinct units of pumice lithic clast breccias,
which record significant explosive events in the volcanic
province. These pumice breccias are best preserved and
widely exposed within the Los Frailes Formation (SORIA-
NO et alii, 2012), the Cerro de los Guardias Formation and
the Cala del Plomo Formation, both in the central-north-
ern part of the Cabo de Gata volcanic zone (SORIANO et
alii, this issue). These deposits are associated with the
most evolved chemical compositions, up to rhyolites.
Water depth and hydrostatic pressure played little or no
role in suppressing explosive activity because water
depths were not great enough, which the fossil assem-
blage supports. However, the deposits appear to be resed-
imented pyroclastic deposits, from shallow water sources
or even subaerial volcanic edifices, as evidenced by the
common occurrence of sub rounded to well rounded
pumice clasts indicating significant tractional abrasion
prior to and during resedimentation. Some may have
originated as primary pumice and ash pyroclastic flows
that transformed into water supported granular mass
flows of pyroclastic debris. There is no evidence of weld-
ing or hot state emplacement. It is unclear if the pyroclas-
tic deposits originated from emergent subaerial vents or
from shallow submarine vents. The absence of abundant,
radially jointed pumice clasts may suggest the former
(cf. ALLEN & MCPHIE, 2000; ALLEN et alii, 2008).
As a whole, the main subaqueous eruption and
emplacement styles that can be inferred from the analysis
of the deposits at Cabo de Gata are very consistent with
the proposed shallow marine environment, where both
 SUBMARINE VOLCANISM: A REVIEW OF THE CONSTRAINTS, PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS
passive effusive eruptions of volatile poor magmas pro-
duced coherent to marginally quench fragmented subma-
rine lavas (SORIANO et alii, 2013; PORRECA et alii, 2014),
and more volatile rich magmas caused relatively large
volume, shallow marine to subaerial explosive events that
produced voluminous pumice deposits, much of which
were resedimented (SORIANO et alii, 2012; this issue).
375
Fig. 9 - a) Contact between massive monomictic dacite block brec-
cia in contact with an underlying dacite pumice breccia, Los Frail-
les, Cabo de Gata, Spain; b) Radially jointed block in dacite block
breccia, indicating it was probably hot at the time of incorporation
in the host mass flow. Was this mass flow a hot or cold debris ava-
lanche or a block and ash flow? Los Frailles, Cabo de Gata, Spain
c) Megaclast in the dacite block breccia. Carles Soriano for scale.
Los Frailles, Cabo de Gata, Spain; d) Massive rhyolitic pumice-lithic
clast breccia. Note the sub-rounded to rounded form of many of
the pumice clasts, suggesting the deposit originated by a granular
mass-flow, such as a clast-rich debris flow. Los Genoveses, Cabo de
Gata, Spain.
SUMMARY
This review has provided a snapshot of the current
state of understanding of some aspects of submarine vol-
canism and has identified some of the issues that are still
not well understood. In particular, it has highlighted how
complex submarine volcanic processes are compared with
376 R.A.F. CAS
subaerial processes, largely due to the very different prop-
erties of the ambient water mass compared with the
atmosphere, and the way that erupting magma can interact
with the water mass. Further advances will occur when all
relevant physical properties of the ambient water mass that
impact on eruption behaviour are taken into account, in
particular in relation to submarine explosive eruptions.
The review also highlights the difficulties of interpret-
ing the origins of pumice deposits found in subaqueous
settings and successions – they don’t always represent
explosive events from subaqueous vents. They could also
have been derived from distant sources, and they may
even be of non-explosive origins.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is the result of many years of interest in subaqueous
volcanic processes and their deposits. We thank our institutions, col-
leagues and students for their support and interest. Because of space
limitations we could not cite all the relevant literature and we apolo-
gise to colleagues for omissions. We thank the anonymous journal
reviewers, journal editors Sandro Conticelli and Raffaello Cioni, and
Kelly Russell for helpful comments and suggestions that considera-
bly improved the manuscript.
REFERENCES
ALLEN S.R., CASHMAN K.V. & FISKE R.S. (2008) - Quenching of
steam-charged pumice: Implications for submarine pyroclastic
volcanism. Earth Planet. Sci Letts., 274, 40-49.
ALLEN S.R. & MCPHIE J. (2000) - Water-settling and resedimentation
of submarine rhyolitic pumice at Yali, eastern Aegean, Greece. J.
Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 95, 285-307.
ALLEN S.R. & MCPHIE J. (2009) - Products of Neptunian eruptions.
Geology, 37, 639-642.
BARKER S.J., WILSON C.J.N., BAKER J.A., MILLET M.-A., ROTELLA M.D.,
WRIGHT I.C. & WYSOCZANSKI R.J. (2013) - Geochemistry and
petrogenesis of silicic magmas in the intra-oceanic Kermadec Arc.
J. Petrol., 54, 351-391.
BATIZA R. & WHITE J.D.L. (2000) - Submarine lavas and hyaloclastite.
In: Sigurdsson H. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Volcanoes. Academic
Press, 361-382.
BINNS R. (2003) - Deep marine pumice from the Woodlark and Manus
basins, Papua New Guinea. In: White J.D.L., Smellie J.L. &
Clague D.A. (eds.), Submarine Explosive Volcanism. Amer.
Geophys. Union Monogr., 140, 329-343.
BRAND B.D. & CLARKE A.B. (2009) - The architecture, eruption hi-
story and evolution of the Table Rock Complex, Oregon: From a
Surtseyan to an energetic maar eruption. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res., 180, 203-224.
BRAND B.D. & WHITE C. (2007) - Origin and stratigraphy of phreato-
magmatic deposits at the Pleistocene Sinker Butte Volcano, Western
Snake River Plain, Idaho. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 160, 319-339.
BRYAN S.E., COOK A., EVANS J., COLLS P. & LAWRENCE M. et alii
(2004) - Pumice rafting and faunal dispersion during 2001-2002
in the southwest Pacific: record of a dacitic submarine explosive
eruption from Tonga. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 227, 135-1.
BRYAN S.E., COOK A.G., EVANS J.P., HEBDEN K. & HURREY L. et alii
(2012) - Rapid, Long-Distance Dispersal by Pumice Rafting. PLoS
ONE, 7 (7), e40583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0 13pp.
BUSBY-SPERA C.J. (1984a) - Large volume rhyolite ash flow eruptions
and submarine caldera collapse in the lower Mesozoic Sierra Ne-
vada, California. J. Geophys. Res., 89, B10, 8417-8427.
BUSBY-SPERA C.J. (1984b) - The Lower Mesozoic continental margin
and marine intra-arc sedimentation at Mineral King, California.
In: Crouch J.K. & Bachman S.B. (eds.), Tectonics and sedimen-
tation along the California margin. Pacific Sect. Soc. Econ. Pal.
Mineral., 38, 135-156.
BUSBY-SPERA C.J. (1986) - Depositional features of rhyolitic and andesitic
volcaniclastic rocks of the Mineral King submarine caldera complex,
Sierra Nevada, California. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 27, 43-76.
& G. GIORDANO
BUSBY-SPERA C.J. & WHITE J.D.L. (1987) - Variation in peperite tex-
tures associated with differing host-sediment properties. Bull. Vol-
canol., 49, 765-775.
CAREY S.N. (1997) - Influence of convective sedimentation on the for-
mation of widespread tephra fall layers in the deep sea. Geology,
25, 839-842.
CAREY S.N. & SCHNEIDER J.-L. (2011) - Volcaniclastic processes and de-
posits in the deep-sea. Developments in Sedimentology, 63, 457-515.
CAS R.A.F. (1992) - Submarine volcanism: a review. In Large R. (ed.),
Volcanic hosted massive sulfide deposits in Australia. Spec. Issue
Econ. Geol., 87, 511-541.
CAS R.A.F., LANDIS C.A. & FORDYCE E. (1989) - A monogenetic, Sur-
tla-type, Surtseyan volcano from the Eocene-Oligocene Waiareka-
Deborah volcanics, Otago, New Zealand: a model. Bull. Volcanol.,
51, 281-298.
CAS R.A.F. & WRIGHT J.V. (1987) - Volcanic successions-modern and
ancient. A geological approach to processes, products and succes-
sions: London. ALLEN and Unwin, 529p.
CAS R.A.F. & WRIGHT J.V. (1991) - Subaqueous pyroclastic flows and
ignimbrites: an assessment. Bull. Volcanol., 53, 357-380.
CAS R.A.F., YAMAGISHI H., MOORE L. & SCUTTER C. (2003) - Miocene
Submarine Fire Fountain Deposits, Ryugazaki Headland, Oshoro
Peninsula, Hokkaido, Japan: Implications for Submarine Foun-
tain Dynamics and Fragmentation Processes. In: White J.D.L.,
Smellie J.L. & Clague D.A. (eds.), Submarine Explosive Volcanism.
Amer. Geophys. Union Monogr., 140, 299-316.
CASHMAN K.V. & FISKE R.S. (1991) - Fallout of pyroclastic debris
from submarine volcanic eruptions. Science, 253, 275-280.
CLAGUE D.A., PADUAN J.B. & DAVIS A.S. (2009) - Widespread strom-
bolian eruptions of midocean ridge basalt. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res., 180, 171-188.
DAVIS A.S. & CLAGUE D.A. (2003) - Hyaloclastite from Miocene sea-
mounts offshore central California: compositions, eruption styles
and depositional processes. In: White J.D.L., Smellie J.L. &
Clague D.A. (eds.), Submarine Explosive Volcanism. Amer.
Geophys. Union Monogr., 140, 129-142.
DIXON J.E., CLAGUE D.A., WALLACE P. & POREDA R. (1997) - Volati-
les in alkalic basalts from the North Arch volcanic field, Hawaii:
Extensive degassing of deep submarine-erupted alkali series lavas.
J. Petrol., 38, 911-939.
DEARDOFF N.D., CASHMAN K.V. & CHADWICK W.W. (2011) - Observa-
tions of eruptive plume dynamics and pyroclastic deposits from
submarine explosive eruptions at NW Rota-1, Mariana arc. J. Vol-
canol. Geotherm. Res., 202, 47-59.
DOWNEY W.S. & LENTZ D.R. (2006) - Igneous associations. 6. Model-
ling of deep submarine pyroclastic volcanism: a review and new
results. Geosci. Canada, 32, 5-24.
FISKE R.S., CASHMAN K.V., SHABATA A. & WATANABE K. (1998) -
Tephra dispersal from Myojinsho, Japan, during its shallow sub-
marine eruption of 1952-1953. Bull. Volcanol., 59, 262-275.
FISKE R.S., NAKA J., IIZASA K., YUASA M. & KLAUS A. (2001) - Sub-
marine silicic caldera at the front of the Izu-Bonin arc, Japan:
voluminous seafloor eruptions of rhyolite pumice. Geol. Soc. Am.
Bull., 113, 813-824.
HEAD J.W. III & WILSON L. (2003) - Deep submarine pyroclastic erup-
tions: theory and predicted landforms and deposits. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res., 121, 155-193.
HÖSKULDSSON A. & SPARKS R.S.J. (1997) - Thermodynamics and
fluid dynamics of effusive subglacial eruption. Bull. Volcanol.,
59, 219-230.
HOWELLS M.F., REEDMAN A.J. & CAMPBELL S.D.G. (1986) - The subma-
rine eruption and emplacement of the Lower Rhyolitic Tuff Forma-
tion (Ordovician), North Wales. J. Geol. Soc. Lond., 143, 411-423.
KANO K. (2003) - Subaqueous pumice eruptions and their products. A
review. In: White J.D.L., Smellie J.L. & Clague D.A. (eds.), Sub-
marine Explosive Volcanism. Amer. Geophys. Union Monogr.,
140, 213-230.
KANO K., YAMAMOTO T. & ONO K. (1996) - Subaqueous eruption and em-
placement of the Shinjima Pumice, Shinjima (Moeshima) Island, Ka-
goshima Bay, SW Japan. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 71, 187-206.
KESSEL L.G. & BUSBY C.J. (2003) - Analysis of VHMS-hosting ignim-
brites erupted at bathyal water depths (Ordovician Bald Mountain
Sequence, northern Maine). In: White J.D.L., Smellie J.L. &
 SUBMARINE VOLCANISM: A REVIEW OF THE CONSTRAINTS, PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS
Clague D.A. (eds.), Submarine Explosive Volcanism. Amer.
Geophys. Union Monogr., 140, 361-379.
KOKELAAR B.P. (1983) - The mechanism of surtseyan volcanism. J.
Geol. Soc. Lond., 140, 939-44.
KOKELAAR P. (1986) - Magma-water interactions in subaqueous and
emergent basaltic volcanism. Bull. Volcanol., 48, 275-290.
KOKELAAR P. & BUSBY C. (1992) - Subaqueous explosive eruption
and welding of pyroclastic deposits. Science, 257, 196-201.
KUROKAWA A. (1991) - Formation of felsic pumiceous hyaloclastites:
a case study from Tadami district, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan.
Mineral. Petrol. Econ. Geol., 86, 439-458.
MCBIRNEY A.R. (1963) - Factors governing the nature of submarine
volcanism. Bull. Volcanol., 26, 455-469.
MCBIRNEY A.R. (1971) - Oceanic volcanism: a review. Geophys. Space
Phys. Rev., 9, 523-556.
MCPHIE J., DOYLE M. & ALLEN R.L. (1993) - Volcanic Textures. CODES,
University of Tasmania.
PECKOVER R.S., BUCHANAN D.J. & ASHBY D.E. (1973) - Fuel-coolant
interaction in submarine volcanism. Nature, 245, 307-308.
PORRECA M., CIFELLI F., SORIANO C., GIORDANO G., ROMANO C.,
CONTICELLI S. & MATTEI M. (2014) - Hyaloclastite fragmentation
below the glass transition. An example from El Barronal submari-
ne volcanic complex (Spain). Geology, 42, 87-90.
RESNYANSKY A.D. & DELANEY T.G. (2006) - Experimental study of
blast mitigation in a water mist. Aust. Govt. Defence Science and
Technology Organisation Technical Rept. DSTO-TR-1944, 41pp.
ROTELLA M.D., WILSON C.J.N., BARKER S.J. & WRIGHT I.C. (2013) -
Highly vesicular pumice generated by buoyant detachment in
subaqueous volcanism. Nature Geosci., 6, 129-132. doi:
10.1038/NGEO1709.
SCHNEIDER J.-L., FOURQUIN C. & PAICHELER J.-C. (1992) - Suba-
queously welded ash-flow tuffs: the Visean of southern Vosges
(France) and the Upper Cretaceous of northern Anatolia (Turkey).
J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 49, 365-383.
SCUTTER C., CAS R., MOORE L. & DE RITA D. (1998) - Facies architec-
ture and origin of a submarine rhyolitic lava flow-dome complex,
Ponza, Italy. J. Geophys. Res., 103, B11, 27551-27566.
SHARQAWY M., LIENHARD J.H. & ZUBAIR S.M. (2010) - Thermophysi-
cal properties of seawater: a review of existing correlations and
data. Desalination and Water Treatment, 16, 354-380.
SHERIDAN M.F. & WOHLETZ K.H. (1981) - Hydrovolcanic explosions:
the systematics of water pyroclast equilibration. Science, 212,
1387-1389.
SIMPSON K. & MCPHIE J. (2001) - Fluidal-clast breccia generated by
submarine fire fountaining, Trooper Creek Formation, Queen-
sland, Australia. J. Volc. Geotherm. Res., 109, 339-355.
SKILLING I., WHITE J.D.L. & MCPHIE J. (eds.) (2002) - Peperites: pro-
cesses and products of magma-sediment mingling. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res., 114, 1-17.
SMITH T.L. & BATIZA R. (1989) - New field and laboratory evidence for
the origin of hyaloclastite flows on seamount summits. Bull. Vol-
canol., 51, 96-114.
SORIANO C., GIORDANO G., CAS R.A.F., RIGGS N.R. & PORRECA M.
(2013) - Facies architecture, emplacement mechanisms and erup-
tion style of the submarine andesite El Barronal complex, Cabo de
Gata, SE Spain. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 264, 210-222. doi:
10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2013
SORIANO C., RIGGS N., GIORDANO G., PORRECA M. & CONTICELLO S.
(2012) - Cyclic growth and mass wasting of submarine Los Frailes
lava flow and dome complex in Cabo de Gata, SE Spain. J. Volca-
nol. Geotherm. Res., 231-232, 72-86.
SPERA F.J. (2000). Physical properties of magma. In: Sigurdsson H.
(ed.), Encyclopedia of Volcanoes. Academic Press, 171-190.
SOURIRAJAN S. & KENNEDY G.C. (1962) - The system H2O-NaCl at
elevated temperatures and pressures. Am. J. Sci., 260, 115-141.
SPARKS R.S.J. (1978) - The dynamics of bubble formation and growth in
magmas: a review and analysis. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 3, 1-37.
STIX J. & PHILLIPS J.C. (2012) - An analog investigation of magma
fragmentation and degassing. Effects of pressure, volatile
Manuscript received 27 February 2014; accepted 23 September 2014; editorial responsability and handling by R. Cioni.
View publication stats
377
content, and decompression rate. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.,
211-212, 12-23.
STOW D.A.V., TAIRA A., OGAWA Y., SOH W., TANIGUSHI H. & PICKE-
RING K.V. (1998) - Volcaniclastic sediments, process interaction
and depositional setting of the Mio-Pliocene Miura Group, SE Ja-
pan. Sediment. Geol., 115, 351-381.
THORARINSSON S., EINARSSON T., SIGVALDASON G.E. & ELLISON G.
(1964) - The submarine eruption off the Vestmann Islands. Bull.
Volcanol., 27, 435-45.
TROFIMOVS J. et alii (2006) - Submarine pyroclastic deposits formed at
the Soufriere Hills volcano, Montserrat (1995-2003). What happens
when pyroclastic flows enter the ocean? Geology, 34, 549-552.
TROFIMOVS J., SPARKS R.S.J. & TALLING P. (2008) - Anatomy of a
submarine pyroclastic flow and associated turbidity current: July
2003 dome collapse, Soufriere Hills volcano, Montserrat, West
Indies. Sedimentology, 55, 617-634.
WALLACE P. & ANDERSON A.T. (2000 Encyclopedia) - Volatiles in mag-
mas. In Sigurdsson H. (ed.), of Volcanoes. Academic Press, 149-170.
WATTON T.J., JERRAM D.A., THORDARSON T. & DAVIES R.J. (2013) -
Three dimensional lithofacies variations in hyaloclastite deposits.
J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 250, 19-33.
WOHLETZ K.H. (1986) - Explosive magma-water interactions: ther-
modynamics, explosion mechanisms, and field studies. Bull. Vol-
canol., 48, 245-264.
WHITE J.D.L. (2000) - Subaqueous eruption-fed density currents and
their deposits. Precamb. Res., 101, 87-109.
WHITE J.D.L. & HOUGHTON B. (2000) - Surtseyan and related phrea-
tomagmatic eruptions. In Sigurdsson H. (ed.), Encyclopedia of
Volcanoes. Academic Press, London, 495-511.
WHITE J.D.L., SMELLIE J.L. & CLAGUE D.A. (2003) - Introduction. A de-
ductive outline and typical overview of subaqueous explosive volcani-
sm. In: White J.D.L., Smellie J.L. & Clague D.A. (eds.), Submarine
Explosive Volcanism. Amer. Geophys. Union Monogr., 140, 1-23.
WHITHAM A. & SPARKS R.S.J. (1986) - Pumice. Bull. Volcanol., 48,
209-223.
WOHLETZ K.H. (1986) - Explosive magma-water interactions: ther-
modynamics, explosion mechanisms, and field studies. Bull. Vol-
canol., 48, 245-264.
WOHLETZ K.H. (2003) - Water/magma interaction: physical considera-
tions for the deep submarine environment. In: White J.D.L.,
Smellie J.L. & Clague D.A. (eds.), Submarine Explosive Volcani-
sm. Amer. Geophys. Union Monogr., 140, 25-49.
WRIGHT I.C. (1996) - Volcaniclastic processes on modern submarine
arc stratovolcanoes: sidescan and photographic evidence from the
Rumble IV and V volcanoes, southern Kermadec Arc (SW Pacific).
Marine Geol., 136, 21-39.
WRIGHT I.C. & GAMBLE J.A. (1999) - Southern Kermadec submarine
caldera arc volcanoes (SW Pacific). Caldera formation by effusive
and pyroclastic eruption. Marine Geol., 161, 207-227.
WRIGHT I.C., GAMBLE J.A. & SHANE P.A.R. (2003) - Submarine silicic
volcanism of the Healy caldera, southern Kermadec arc (SW Pacific).
I. Volcanology and eruption mechanisms. Bull. Volcanol., 65, 15-29.
WRIGHT I.C., STOTHERS P., HANNINGTON M., DE RONDE C.E.J.,
HERZIG P., SMITH I.E.M. & BROWNE P.R.L. (2002) - Towed-ca-
mera investigations of shallow-intermediate water-depth submari-
ne stratovolcanoes of the southern Kermadec arc, New Zealand.
Marine Geol., 185, 207-218.
WRIGHT I.C., WORTHINGTON T.J. & GAMBLE J.A. (2006) - New multi-
beam mapping and geochemistry of the 30o-35o S sector, and
overview, of southern Kermadec arc volcanism. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res., 149, 263-296.
YUASA M. & KANO K. (2003) - Submarine silicic calderas on the
Northern Shichito-Iwojima Ridge, Izu-Ogasawara (Bonin) Arc,
Western Pacific. In: White J.D.L., Smellie J. & Clague D. (eds.),
Explosive Subaqueous Volcanism, Amer. Geophys. Union Mono-
gr., 140, 231-243.
ZIMANOWSKI B. & BUTTNER R. (2003) - Phreatomagmatic explosions
in subaqueous volcanism. In: White J.D.L., Smellie J.L. &
Clague D.A. (eds.), Submarine Explosive Volcanism. Amer.
Geophys. Union Monogr., 140, 51-60.