Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
DOI 10.1007/s00531-015-1243-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Monogenetic volcanism: personal views and discussion
K. Németh1 · G. Kereszturi1
Received: 16 January 2014 / Accepted: 25 August 2015 / Published online: 3 September 2015
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Abstract Monogenetic volcanism produces small-vol-
ume volcanoes with a wide range of eruptive styles, litho-
logical features and geomorphic architectures. They are
classified as spatter cones, scoria (or cinder) cones, tuff
rings, maars (maar–diatremes) and tuff cones based on the
magma/water ratio, dominant eruption styles and their typi-
cal surface morphotypes. The common interplay between
internal, such as the physical–chemical characteristics of
magma, and external parameters, such as groundwater flow,
substrate characteristics or topography, plays an important
role in creating small-volume volcanoes with diverse archi-
tectures, which can give the impression of complexity and
of similarities to large-volume polygenetic volcanoes. In
spite of this volcanic facies complexity, we defend the term
“monogenetic volcano” and highlight the term’s value,
especially to express volcano morphotypes. This study
defines a monogenetic volcano, a volcanic edifice with a
small cumulative volume (typically ≤1 km3) that has been
built up by one continuous, or many discontinuous, small
eruptions fed from one or multiple magma batches. This
definition provides a reasonable explanation of the recently
recognized chemical diversities of this type of volcanism.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s00531-015-1243-6) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* K. Németh
K.Nemeth@massey.ac.nz
1 ations of the physicochemical state of the source zone. More-
Volcanic Risk Solutions, Institute of Agriculture
and Environment, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222,
Palmerston North, New Zealand
Keywords Monogenetic volcanism · Scoria cone · Maar ·
Tuff ring · Tuff cone · Cinder cone · Phreatomagmatic ·
Volume · Explosive · Conduit · Eruption
Introduction
Small-scale basaltic magmatic systems with magma fluxes
of 10−1 to 10−3 km3/ky are common on the Earth’s surface,
forming volcanic fields (Connor and Conway 2000; Guilbaud
et al. 2011; Le Corvec et al. 2013a, b). Individual volcanoes
in such fields are referred to as monogenetic, emphasizing the
short duration over which the individual volcano was active,
the small volume of eruptive magma involved, and the rela-
tive simplicity of the volcanic edifice as a reflection of the
simple and “one-off” nature of the eruption itself. This type
of volcanism within a volcanic field setting creates a variety
of volcanoes, such as spatter cones, scoria cones, maar–dia-
tremes, tuff rings and cones (e.g. Fig. 1, 2). Recent research
has, however, found that these monogenetic volcanoes can
show systematic geochemical variations, reflecting the pro-
cesses of melt extraction and deep fractionation (Brenna et al.
2010, 2011; Genareau et al. 2010; McGee et al. 2011, 2013;
Jankovics et al. 2012; Valentine 2012). This growing num-
ber of findings triggered a recent spike of research intensity
to unravel this phenomenon, especially looking at the chemi-
cal variations in connection to any recognizable changes in
the volcanic architecture and eruption style (Németh et al.
2011; van Otterloo et al. 2013, 2014; Jordan et al. 2015).
Such research is viewed as particularly important because
these chemical variations are inferred to occur in near-source
environments and thus provide a unique window to view vari-
over, the random, rather than systematic (trend-like), chemi-
cal variations are linked to the volcanic stratigraphy of the
13
2132
Fig. 1  A theoretical cross section of a spatter (a) and scoria (b) cone
monogenetic volcanic edifice and provide important insights
into how the mantle produces its partial melts and how that
melt can rise to the surface. As a complement to high-reso-
lution chemical sampling, the fine details of the sedimentary
architecture of the pyroclastic successions and their pyroclasts
allow new insights into how magma fragmentation produces
a broad spectrum of eruptive styles (Kereszturi et al. 2011;
Jordan et al. 2013; Tchamabe et al. 2013; van Otterloo et al.
2013; Agustin-Flores et al. 2014) and how such trends can be
recognized through a volcanic field (Kereszturi et al. 2014;
Herrero-Hernandez et al. 2015). These eruptive styles are pri-
marily controlled by the magma flux rates and the magma’s
physicochemical properties (Houghton et al. 1999; Parfitt
2004), and the bulk ratio of magma to external water/water-
bearing sediments and the style of interaction between them
(Lorenz 1985, 1986; Valentine and White 2012; Valentine and
Cortes 2013; van Otterloo et al. 2013; Valentine and de Vries
2014; Valentine et al. 2014). Research focused on understand-
ing the above-mentioned complexity has become common in
many different volcanic fields, revealing the spatiotemporal
variation of recorded eruption styles and volcano types that
13
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
can form in a single volcanic field (Sohn 1996; Carn 2000;
Godchaux and Bonnichsen 2002; Gutmann 2002; Houghton
and Gonnermann 2008; Bolos et al. 2014; Tadini et al. 2014;
Herrero-Hernandez et al. 2015).
In the present paper, we explore the term monogenetic,
which has been recently questioned by a rising number of
studies on such volcanoes (Guilbaud et al. 2011; Kshirsa-
gar et al. 2011; McGee et al. 2011; Needham et al. 2011;
Németh et al. 2011; White and Ross 2011; Blaikie et al.
2012; Brenna et al. 2012; Jordan et al. 2013; Shane et al.
2013; Runge et al. 2014; Sheth 2014), and we introduce a
new critical model of how we can better understand and
describe the Earth’s most common form of volcanism,
with numerous examples to demonstrate the complex-
ity of monogenetic volcanism. Throughout the paper, we
cite numerous examples from various volcanic regions on
Earth to support our arguments. To locate these sites, we
have provided in the supplementary material a Google
Earth kmz file where the reader can locate the mentioned
geographical examples. In the rest of the test, we will not
specifically cite this supplementary file.
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
Fig. 2  A theoretical cross section of a maar–diatreme volcano (a)
and a tuff cone (b). On “a” the left side of the diagram shows the
most likely volcanic edifice cross section developed on a “hard sub-
Enigma of monogenetic volcanism
Main issue
The initial apparent feature of monogenetic volcanoes is the
“assumed simplicity” in terms of eruptive volume, eruptive
2133
strate” country rock environment, while on the right side of the dia-
gram the typical features expected in the cross section of a maar–dia-
treme formed over “soft substrate” are shown
diversity and longevity (Walker 1993). Accordingly, mono-
genetic volcanoes have been defined in many ways in the
past, capturing the following common expressions:
A volcano that erupts only once (Walker 2000)
… a volcano is monogenetic if the magma supply is
so small or episodic that any pathways have cooled
13
2134 Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146

down and are no longer favoured routes for the next dispersed volcanic regions in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic
magma batch. (Walker 2000). Belt (Delgado Granados and Martin del Pozzo 1993; Siebe
Monogenetic volcanoes are defined as volcanoes that et al. 2004a, b; Agustin-Flores et al. 2011) or in the Ara-
erupt only once over a brief period of time … (Takada bian Peninsula (Camp and Roobol 1989; Camp et al. 1991),
1994), based on earlier definitions (MacDonald 1972; where there are numerous volcanoes difficult to classify as
Williams and McBirney 1979). short lived and small volume, but they clearly differ from
volcanoes formed over centuries to thousands of years
These definitions capture only the one-off nature of
through steady eruption through a stable volcanic plumbing
monogenetic volcanoes, leaving gaps in the terminology.
and conduit system (i.e. polygenetic volcanoes). Regard-
Furthermore, pyroclastic records of monogenetic volcanoes
less of eruptive history complexity and the occasional pres-
from both young and ancient volcanic fields demonstrate
ence of longer-lived edifices, most of these volcanoes are
that a monogenetic volcanic edifice could form through
referred to as “monogenetic” and the field where they are
multiple eruption phases each represented by various num-
located commonly defined as a “monogenetic volcanic
ber of eruptive pulses reflecting the slight changes in the
field” (Németh 2010). This paradoxical situation needs to
magma rise rate and local influence of the external condi-
be discussed and reconciled. While this question sounds
tions the magma influenced by. Essentially an eruptive
philosophical, it has an enormous effect on the understand-
pulse may last a few seconds to minutes while an eruptive
ing of ancient volcanoes and volcanic successions, as well
phase can last a few hours to days and consists of numer-
as the ability to deal with dispersed volcanic regions from a
ous eruptive pulses that may alternate between explosions
volcanic hazard perspective.
and lava outpourings (Fisher and Schmincke 1984). An
individual eruptive phase is best defined as an eruption fed
Useful terms with conditions: small eruptions
from a continuous magma batch, regardless of whether it
and monogenetic volcano
had a chemical change in the course of the eruption or not
(e.g. Manville et al. 2009). A single eruption or eruptive
Besides the term “monogenetic”, there are a few synonyms
episode composed of several eruptive phases, which may
in the literature, such as “small volume” (Valentine et al.
last a few days, months or years (Fisher and Schmincke
2006; Valentine and Gregg 2008), or small volcanoes (e.g.
1984). Over longer timescales, however, from ky to My,
White and Ross 2011), highlighting the necessity of adding
multiple eruptive episodes can contribute to the growth and
the “size” constraint to the definition of a monogenetic vol-
destruction of a volcanic edifice, leaving a complex facies
cano. In the present study, small eruptions are defined by
architecture even if only small eruptive volume associated
two quantities: a small eruptive volume (typically ≤1 km3)
with each eruptive episodes creating volcanoes that are
and a relatively short-lived eruption duration (typically
closely resembling small-volume volcanoes traditionally
≤102 years). In a simple way, a small eruption is equal to
defined as monogenetic. Such volcanoes recently defined
a combination of a small magma volume and a presum-
as polycyclic monogenetic volcanoes, and they are com-
ably short eruption duration. A monogenetic volcano then
mon in many volcanic fields, such as the maar and scoria
typically would be made of eruption products derived from
cone complexes of Fekete-hegy (Auer et al. 2007), Bon-
small eruptions that can overlap. Here, we need to distin-
doró (Kereszturi et al. 2010) and Tihany (Németh et al.
guish eruptive phases (Manville et al. 2009) and their asso-
2001) from the Bakony–Balaton Highland Volcanic Field
ciated eruptive products that clearly relate to a single phase
in Western Hungary. This complexity is also evident in
of a magma batch and eruptive episodes (Manville et al.
many young and erosionally intact volcanoes, including
2009) that can be fed by multiple magma batches and even
those from the Eifel volcanic field, Germany (Shaw et al.
separated by time periods longer than those needed for
2010), the long-lived scoria cone and lava flow complex
solidifying a typically sized magma batch. It is critical then
of Rangitoto in the Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand
to pay attention to the number of eruptive phases associated
(Shane et al. 2013), the Cerro Negro scoria cone, Nicara-
with an eruptive episode, the overall length of the eruptive
gua (McKnight and Williams 1997; Courtland et al. 2012,
episode and the potential number of breaks, manifested in
2013), and the well-described scoria cone of Jorullo (Luhr
the presence of unconformity surfaces in the pyroclastic
and Carmichael 1985; Hasenaka and Carmichael 1987;
succession, associated with an eruptive episode (Fig. 3a,
Rowland et al. 2009; Guilbaud et al. 2011) and Parícutin
b). Ideally, in the case of a monogenetic volcano we would
(Pioli et al. 2008; Erlund et al. 2010) both from Mexico,
expect a single or small number of magma batches erupting
which were also observed through their growth (Foshag
in a short period of time through a single or small num-
and Gonzalez 1956; Luhr and Simkin 1993). The enigmatic
ber of eruptive episodes with no sign of long-time breaks
nature of monogenetic volcanism is even more apparent
between the small numbers of individual eruptive phases.
in long-lived mature volcanic fields, such as many of the
Normally, all these take place in a localized area over a

13
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
Fig. 3  Typical sections of edifice-building volcaniclastic succes-
sions of monogenetic volcanoes: a unconformity in Songaksan tuff
ring of the Jeju Island, South Korea. This unconformity is represented
by a hard to recognize textural changes of the pyroclastic succession
between the two black arrow about half way between them, b tuff
breccia horizons (white arrows) at Suwolbong tuff ring’s (Jeju Island,
South Korea) proximal pyroclastic succession as signs of vent clear-
ing events through the eruption
single, if wandering, conduit network. The conduit loca-
tions then can change over long time periods, forming dis-
persed volcanoes and clusters, lineaments or randomly dis-
tributed patterns of volcanoes in a volcanic field. Therefore,
the distinguishing features between monogenetic volcanic
fields and polygenetic volcanoes should be the dispersed
nature and the stability of the volcanic conduits. In the case
of monogenetic volcanism, the position of conduits does
wander, while typical polygenetic volcanoes will build edi-
fices and associated eruptive products that represent “ver-
tically” distinct eruptive periods. To explore this problem
deeper, we need to look at the eruptive volume, eruption
frequency and the stability of the volcanic conduits over
time in a critical way.
2135
The eruptive volumes on the surface of monogenetic
volcanoes are normally positively correlated with the
magma supply at the high-pressure depth, which can be
derived from single or multiple magma batches, usually
through a single and well-defined conduit. A larger magma
supply can provide magma to fuel multiple eruptive phases,
separated by relatively short gaps of time (e.g. hours to
years); however, the magma normally follows single, or
at least closely spaced, conduits. The short total lifespan
of small eruptions is perhaps correlated with the release of
magma from the source zone and its ascent to the surface.
If there are multiple magma batches released from differ-
ent sources, the eruptive period could be prolonged, result-
ing in a complex pyroclastic succession and even some
evidence of distinct chemical evolution and/or source pro-
cesses and polymagmatism. To accommodate this complex
pattern of chemical evolution, the term “monogenetic vol-
cano” is defined in the present study as:
A volcanic edifice with a small cumulative volume
(typically ≤1 km3) that has been built up by one
continuous, or many discontinuous, small eruptions
occurred in a short timescale (typically ≤10 of years)
and fed from one or multiple magma batches through
a relatively simple, closely spaced feeder dyke (and
sill) system with no well-developed magma chambers
associated with.
This definition makes a distinction between monoge-
netic and polygenetic volcanoes based on the cumulative
volumes, and not based on the complexity of the physi-
cal–chemical evolution. This implies that a volcanic suc-
cession formed from two small-volume magma batches
(each <1 km3) that are spaced closely both spatially and
temporally is still covered by the definition of a monoge-
netic volcano. Such a volcano shows more similarity in
size, eruption duration and complexity to a sensu stricto
monogenetic volcano than a sensu stricto polygenetic vol-
cano. Thus, it cannot be referred to as a small polygenetic
volcano (e.g. Rangitoto volcano in the Auckland volcanic
field, New Zealand). The addition of volume constraints
and the number of conduits to the definition of a monoge-
netic volcano clearly separates the complex/extreme type of
(monogenetic) volcano from a (polygenetic) volcano with
similar eruptive episodes, but which have occurred over
a far longer timescale (ky to My) and in a larger volume
(≥5 km3), both per eruptive magma and the aggregated vol-
ume of the growing volcanic edifice.
This revised definition of a monogenetic volcano
includes “typical” values, although we hypothesize that
the typical threshold values must be magmatic system
specific. Consequently, the terminology should be flex-
ible and adaptable to the natural variability of the physical
characteristics of volcanoes formed in different magmatic
13
2136
systems and in diverse geodynamic and tectonic settings.
In this context, the term monogenetic in some volcanic
fields might cover volcanoes with eruptive volumes that
are orders of magnitude less than the 1 km3 threshold given
here (Table 1). For example, the DRE-corrected eruptive
volume of the young Auckland volcanic field, New Zea-
land, is ≤0.05 km3 for 90 % of the total volcano population
(Kereszturi et al. 2013). Similar distributions of eruptive
volumes are found in Abu volcanic field in Japan (Kiyo-
sugi et al. 2010) and Bakony–Balaton Highland in Hun-
gary (Kereszturi et al. 2011). Eruptive volumes are orders
of magnitude larger in the volcanic fields located along the
Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, such as in the Jorullo area
(Guilbaud et al. 2011) or Parícutin (Vespermann et al. 2000;
Pioli et al. 2008; Inbar et al. 2011). In the Jorullo area, the
same eruptive volume range of ≤0.05 km3 includes about
10 % of the total volcano population (Guilbaud et al. 2011).
This justifies the need to adopt “typical” values when defin-
ing monogenetic volcanoes.
Departures from monogenetic signatures: transitional
volcanoes
There are two types of departure from the definition given
in this study:
1. A volcano with more than one eruptive phase over a
period of time from years to ky that is often associated
with closely spaced individual conduits and a cumula-
tive eruptive and edifice volume ≥1 km3.
2. A single well-defined short-lived eruption that pro-
duced an exceptionally large volume of eruptive prod-
ucts that erupted through a single conduit and hence
built large volcanic edifices.
In the first situation, the reason for the deviation from
a sensu stricto monogenetic eruption is likely to be asso-
ciated with the magmatic plumbing system. The magmatic
plumbing system of a monogenetic volcano acts as a path-
way from a deep source region to the surface, with magma
reaching the surface through multiple eruptive phases
either in a single eruptive phase or even in repeated, but
limited, eruptive episodes separated by short time periods.
If repeated eruptive episodes took place in a well-defined
area, it can be often detected by direct dating of the pyro-
clastic succession, identifying stratigraphic units and recog-
nizing sedimentological features typical for some temporal
breaks in the eruption continuity. To identify the above-
mentioned features, stratigraphy-based fine-scale (Fig. 3a)
systematic sampling is needed (Brenna et al. 2010). In most
of the cases, it is clear that the inferred time gap between
the eruptive episodes is usually longer than decades needed
to at least partially solidify a feeding dyke (Connor et al.
13
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
1997). Consequently, these eruption scenarios are diffi-
cult to classify as “purely” monogenetic. Furthermore, if
the eruptive volumes of such eruptive episodes are large,
then the cumulative volume of the resultant edifice can
go beyond the threshold value given in this study, and the
resulting volcano will show more and more affinity to a
typical polygenetic volcanic edifice.
The second case is when the eruption is controlled by
large magma supply through a single conduit. These types
of volcanoes may erupt in a simple fashion, such as from a
single eruption style including extensive effusive eruption
periods, resulting in a simple volcano stratigraphy, despite
its large eruptive volumes (e.g. 1–5 km3). These are usually
volcanoes that produced extensive lava fields or lava-shield
volcanoes that are clearly formed relatively short period of
time and produced lava much smaller in volume as typi-
cal lava shields associated with oceanic islands such as
Hawaii. Such relatively small-volume simple lava shields
are common in Iceland (Andrew and Gudmundsson 2007;
Pedersen and Grosse 2014), along the Snake River in Idaho
(Greeley 1982) or in Central Mexico (Hasenaka 1994).
These are usually volcanoes that produced extensive lava
fields. In extreme cases, this category could include “point
sources” of flood lavas, as was raised in several intra-con-
tinental flood lava fields such as those that erupted through
thick continental lithospheres, i.e. in the Arabian Penin-
sula (Murcia et al. 2014). This problem was highlighted
by recent research on determining the source volcanoes of
typical large flood basalt regions, such as those in the Dec-
can (Sheth and Cañón-Tapia 2015).
Spectrum of monogenetic volcanoes
Based on stratigraphic setting, facies architecture, geo-
chemistry and geochronology, there are examples of mono-
genetic volcanoes that show departures from the definition
given in this study. These are all related to the genetic evo-
lution of the volcanoes, which we call here genetic diver-
sity. If our conceptual model for monogenetic volcanism
changes from a monogenetic versus polygenetic group-
ing scheme to a spectrum of many “departures” from the
classical “textbook” examples, we can accommodate the
genetic diversity better and still retain the clarity of the
meaning of the term monogenetic volcano. In the present
study, instead of using a distinct separation between mono-
genetic and polygenetic classes, a density curve is hypoth-
esized to describe the observed genetic diversity of mono-
genetic volcanoes (Fig. 4). This spectrum has two distinct
peaks: “monogenetic” and “polygenetic” sensu stricto. At
one peak, the extremely simple genetic types fall, such as
the short-lived (hours to days), single conduit-fed and sim-
ple (no significant or systematic eruption style variations)
scoria cones, maars, tuff rings or tuff cones (Fig. 4). The
 Table 1  Basic characteristics of some small volume volcanoes commonly considered as monogenetic in comparison to lava domes forming on top of a polygenetic system (Unzen). Paricutin
(and Jabal Quidr) clearly represent(s) long-lived, large volume end-member of the spectrum of "small" volcanoes, while Unzen lava domes individually are small in eruptive volume in spite that
they are evolving as part of a polygenetic volcano

Location Coordinates Age Edifice geometry Area (km2) Volume (km3) Eruption styles Geochemistry References

Latitude Longitude Width (m) Length (m) Height (m)

Pukeiti 36°59′1.77″S 174°45′25.89″E 114 ka 70 60 15 0.54 0.0037 Fire fountaining Alkalic basalt Kereszturi et al.
and effusive (2013)
activity
Maungataketake 36°59′42.11″S 174°44′52.21″E 41–140 ka 1100 1300 25 3.3 0.0330 Phreatomagmatic Alkalic basalt Kereszturi
followed by fire et al. (2013),
fountaining, Agustin-Flores
Strombolian et al. (2014)
eruptions and
effusive activity
Motukorea 36°49′46.05″S 174°53′41.20″E 34 ka 800 1000 70 1.71 0.0045 Phreatomagmatic Nephelinite to Kereszturi et al.
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146

followed by fire alkalic basalt (2013)

fountaining,
Strombolian
eruptions and
effusive activity
Rangitoto 36°47′13.54″S 174°51′29.91″E 0.5 ka 1000 600 120 26.2 0.7 Phreatomagmatic Alkalic to Needham et al.
followed by fire sub-alkaline (2011), Keresz-
fountaining, basalt turi et al. (2013)
Strombolian
eruptions and
effusive activity,
and renewed
activity with an
extensive Strom-
bolian eruptions,
and effusive
activity
Parícutin 19°29′35.83″N 102°15′4.88″W 1943–1952AD 965 620 280 25.0 1.6 Violent Strombo- Basaltic Luhr and Simkin
lian activity with andesite (1993), Inbar
lava flow field et al. (1994),
development Pioli et al.
(2008), Erlund
et al. (2010)
Jabal Quidr 25°43′10.56″N 39°56′35.35″E Holocene 1400 1200 180 ca. 15–20 ca. 1–2 Violent Strombo- Basaltic Camp et al.
lian activity with (1991)
lava flow field
development

13
2137
 2138 Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146

other peak is characterized by greater genetic diversity

Carrasco-Nunez

(1999), Nakada
Courtland et al.

Hoshizumi et al.
liams (1997),
and departs towards polygenetic volcano signatures in

et al. (1999)
References
terms of eruptive volumes, duration and eruptive complex-

and Wil-
McKnight

Riggs and
(2013)

(2004)
ity (Fig. 4). Between the two distinct peaks, there are the
volcanoes discussed earlier as “departures” from monoge-
netic volcanoes. These volcanoes are still characterized by
Geochemistry

cumulative eruptive volumes at least an order of magnitude

less than a typical polygenetic volcano; however, they are
andesite

rhyolite
lian activity with basaltic

Rhyolitic

Dacite to
Violent Strombo- Basaltic,

far more complex than a classical short-lived, small vol-

cano as defined sensu stricto (Fig. 4).
To illustrate the continuum of monogenetic volcano
Explosive dome-

tions, forming
lava flow field

forming erup-

forming erup-
Multiple dome-
types, here we provide some further examples for clarity
Area (km2) Volume (km3) Eruption styles

development

a composite
(Figs. 5, 6). The simplest and most sensu stricto monoge-
volcano
netic volcano is that which has a relatively thin preserved
tions

pyroclastic succession that clearly has no evidence to sup-

port any breaks in its eruption (other than unconformities
developed in the volcanic succession due to slight changes
of depositional axis or effusion direction) and can be estab-
lished as a very short-lived volcano. The Pukeiti volcano in
0.21
0.2

1.1

the Auckland volcanic field is a good example of this sim-

ple type. Pukeiti has a DRE-corrected eruptive volume of
0.0036 km3 (Kereszturi et al. 2013), which formed a small
scoria/spatter cone (15-m-high edifice with a ≤40 m crater
diameter) and a lava flow that travelled 800 m from the vent
Width (m) Length (m) Height (m)

(Table 1). The entire pyroclastic succession is simple, with

no evidence of eruption style changes (Fig. 5a). Towards
540
250

700

the more complex volcanoes, Maungataketake (Fig. 5b)

from Auckland represents a well-developed phreatomag-
matic volcano that has a basal tuff breccia horizon and at
1200
1100

1500
Edifice geometry

least two additional tuff breccia horizons, which indicates

a vent clearing event and a gradual change towards a more
magmatic explosive eruption style, forming an intra-crater
scoria cone with a small lava flow. The DRE-corrected
1200

2000

800

eruptive volume is 0.033 km3, which includes the ejecta

ring (Table 1). Based on geochemistry, melt differentia-
12°30′24.94″N 86°42′11.55″W 1850 AD to

tion occurred at Maungataketake; however, the whole erup-

Unzen (1991-93) 32°45′37.90″N 130°17′53.94″E 500 ka to
present
present

tion is fed by a single batch of magma (Agustin-Flores

19°30′32.24″N 97°26′14.59″W 220 ka

et al. 2014). In terms of eruptive history, Motukorea, still

Age

in Auckland, shows evidence of a similar combination of

eruption styles (Fig. 5c, d). However, the geochemistry
of the magma shows a much more complicated pattern,
Longitude

revealing involvement of two magma batches in the forma-

tion of the volcanic edifice (McGee et al. 2013). This petro-
genic evolution did not result in gaps in the stratigraphy,
vent migration or formation of a complex volcanic edifice.
Coordinates

Towards larger eruptive volumes, Parícutin in Mexico is

Latitude

a good example for a long-lived scoria cone forming erup-

tion through violent Strombolian eruption style with an
Table 1  continued

increasingly complex geochemical evolution (Erlund et al.

2010) and longer-lived eruption (Pioli et al. 2008). Simi-
Cerro Pizarro
Cerro Negro

lar example with both geochemical complexity and erup-

Location

tive volume increase, the resultant volcano edifice could

have complex stratigraphy with more pronounced break(s)

13
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
Fig. 4  Diagrammatic representation of the variability of small-vol-
ume, “monogenetic” volcanoes. The variability of monogenetic vol-
canoes and their link to polygenetic volcanoes are demonstrated as
a relationship between the volcanic eruptive volume/the edifice com-
plexity and the frequency of volcanic eruptions. The eruption history
was coded into numbers, following (Kereszturi and Németh 2012):
1—Hawaiian, 2—Strombolian, 3—violent Strombolian, 4—phrea-
between eruptive phases, such as Rangitoto (Fig. 5e) in
Auckland (Needham et al. 2011). Rangitoto formed from
at least two geochemically distinctive magmas from differ-
ent sources (McGee et al. 2011). In this case, the magma
batches feeding the eruption reached the surface with a pos-
sible 50-year-long gap between them, based on the macro-
scopic and microscopic tephra records on nearby Motutapu
Island and Lake Pupuke (Needham et al. 2011; Shane et al.
2013). The eruptive volume of Rangitoto (Table 1), includ-
ing products of both magma batches preserved in the edi-
fice, is 0.698 km3 (Kereszturi et al. 2013). At Rangitoto, the
alkali magma suite was generated at greater depth and at a
2139
tomagmatic, 5—Surtseyan eruptions and 6—effusive activity. Each
volcano can then be ascribed a chronologically ordered array of num-
bers, depending on the eruption history of the volcano (e.g. 1236 for
Paricutin). If vent location has changed its position more than about
the crater diameter through the eruptive history subsequent eruptive
history added in numeric code separated by a "-" from the previous
code (e.g. 123-26-236)
lower degree of partial melting of a fertile heterogeneous
garnet peridotite source than the later sub-alkaline magma
(McGee et al. 2011). The more volumetric sub-alkali mag-
mas were generated by higher degrees of partial melting
(~3–6 %) at shallower depths around the garnet–spinel
transition zone, and they moved to the surface as diffuse
porosity melts (McGee et al. 2011). In this case, the sec-
ond batch of magma probably opened a new dyke and did
not use the previous one (Needham et al. 2011). Therefore,
the construction of Rangitoto is the result of two closely
spaced monogenetic vents, forming a volumetrically large
centre by superposition.
13
2140
Fig. 5  Typical volcanoes commonly cited as monogenetic volcanoes
that form dispersed volcanic systems (volcanic fields). Each of the
images shows a typical monogenetic volcano type recognized from
the Quaternary Auckland volcanic field (New Zealand). The images
from “a” to “e” show increasing edifice and eruptive volume. On “a”,
one of the smallest volcano of the Auckland volcanic field is shown
with well-developed crater and a small spatter cone in it. On “b”, a
relatively simple tuff ring (Tr) is shown. The basal pyroclastic succes-
sion is typically phreatomagmatic that is covered by more magmatic
eruptive products reflecting eruption style changes through the course
of the short-lived eruption as a reflection of the exhausting ground-
water table through the eruptions. On “c”, a more complex volcano is
shown with capping magmatic volcanic units formed through multi-
ple vents that built up multiple scoria cones (Sc) in a broad basal tuff
ring (Tr) crater. The pyroclastic succession of this volcano (“d”) is
complex with a thick basal tuff breccia rich in accidental lithic frag-
ments (Tb) capped by a thick black scoria succession, part of the so-
called magmatic cone (Mc). The largest and most complex volcano
in the Auckland volcanic field (Rangitoto) hosts about half of the
total eruptive volume of the entire volcanic field, and it has also been
erupted in multiple eruptive episodes over several decades (“e”). The
volcano is closely resemble a lava shield that is tipped by a summit
scoria cone (white line marks the limit of the cone). This volcano is a
long-lived and large-volume volcano that shows features more typical
for a sensu stricto polygenetic volcano
13
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
Fig. 6  Ambiguous monogenetic volcanoes: a large scoria cone or
small composite volcano—Jabal Quidr from Harrat Khaybar, Saudi
Arabia, b the crater wall of the large scoria cone on top of the vol-
canic edifice of the Jabal Quidr volcano in the Harrat Khaybar in
Saudi Arabia shows multiple lava flow layers interbedded with proxi-
mal pyroclastic breccias indicate long lived, large volume of lava
effusion during the lifespan of the volcano, c block-and-ash-flow fan
from a small-volume trachytic lava dome volcano from Saudi Arabia
Other examples of larger-volume and longer-lived
scoria cones include Jabal Quidr in Saudi Arabia (Camp
et al. 1991) (Fig. 6a, b) and Cerro Negro in Nicaragua
(Table 1) (McKnight and Williams 1997; Courtland et al.
2013). Jabal Quidr has a lava shield on which sits a sco-
ria cone (Fig. 6a). The volcano emitted large volumes of
lava, forming several long lava flows (~20 km in length)
and a cone that is about 200 metres above its base with a
deep and steep-walled crater, indicating that it was formed
by a complex and long-lived eruption (Fig. 6b). The vol-
cano has an extensive tephra blanket (covering an esti-
mated area of nearly 100 km2 with an ash blanket of 1 cm
or more in thickness), indicating its sub-Plinian character.
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
Fig. 7  Diagram to show the theoretical link between monogenetic and polygenetic volcanoes (a) and the potential relationship between central,
dominantly large-volume polygenetic volcanoes and small-volume, satellite volcanoes commonly inferred to be as monogenetic volcanoes (b)
Cerro Negro, on the other hand, is clearly a volcano that is
morphologically best defined as a large scoria cone, but its
tephra succession records long-lived activity with at least
22 eruptive episodes since its formation in 1850 (McKnight
and Williams 1997; Hill et al. 1998; Courtland et al. 2013).
Parícutin in Mexico had an eruptive period that lasted
9 years and produced one of the largest known scoria cones
on Earth (Table 1) (Luhr and Simkin 1993). Both Parícutin
and Cerro Negro are volcanoes whose eruption styles were
primarily controlled by the physical–chemical conditions
of the magma (e.g. magmatic explosive eruptions), gener-
ating frequently violent Strombolian eruptions (Pioli et al.
2008; Courtland et al. 2013).
A large number of scoria cones that are basaltic in com-
position host some more evolved (mugearite, benmore-
ite or tracheite) lava domes in their craters or such domes
protrude through their flanks, such as those in the Harrat
Rahat in Saudi Arabia (Camp and Roobol 1989; Moufti and
Németh 2013) or the Cerro Pizarro isolated, but complex,
dome system (Riggs and Carrasco-Nunez 2004). In a sim-
ple case, these lava domes are small in volume and show
2141
only small time gaps between the formation of the host
cone and the dome. At the other extreme, the lava domes
are large and complex and many of them are associated
with block-and-ash-flow deposits that show sedimentologi-
cal evidence to support time gaps between the formation of
major volcanic units (Fig. 6c). Still, the overall structure
of such volcanic complexes is relatively simple, and the
estimated total lifespan of the volcano and its complexity
(both edifice and distal tephra succession) are shorter and
simpler, respectively, than any of the typical lava dome-
dominated polygenetic volcanoes, such as Unzen in Japan
(Hoshizumi et al. 1999; Nakada et al. 1999).
Number of conduits and their relative position:
complexes and flank eruptions
Beside the above-outlined problem in characterizing a vol-
canic system as monogenetic versus polygenetic, the num-
ber of recognized conduits and their relative position are
also an important source of debate. There are a large num-
ber of volcanic complexes on Earth that were active over
13
2142
tens of thousands of years above relatively stable magma
plumbing systems and magma storage zones (e.g. magma
chambers and stalling magma zones). These volcanic com-
plexes were formed by superimposition and accumulation
of pyroclastic deposits from many closely spaced and small
eruptions (e.g. our definition) with well-defined conduit sys-
tems (Fig. 7a). One of the best studied examples for such a
system as this is the Tongariro Volcanic Complex (TVC) in
New Zealand (Cole et al. 1986; Hobden et al. 1996, 1999;
Nakagawa et al. 1998). The TVC consists of well-distin-
guished volcanic edifices, each active over years to ky, and
concentrated over a relatively small area (~100 km2 scale),
which is much smaller than a typical volcanic field (Le Cor-
vec et al. 2013b). The size of individual edifices and their
eruptive volume vary greatly including relatively small-vol-
ume edifices similar to those scoria cones common in intra-
continental volcanic fields. Moreover, the recent eruption of
the Te Maari Crater in the northern flank of the TVC was a
single explosive eruption that took place in a few minutes,
leaving behind a thin tephra blanket and some pyroclastic
surge deposits. This clearly fits well with the small eruption
category, due to its eruption duration and very low volume
of eruptive products (Breard et al. 2014; Pardo et al. 2014;
Procter et al. 2014). In this volcanic complex, despite the
fact that it sits above long-lived and broad shallow mag-
matic plumbing systems, there is no well-localized single,
central conduit, in contrast to the nearby Ruapehu volcano
(Pardo et al. 2012). Ruapehu, however, is clearly a com-
posite polygenetic volcano (Fig. 7a, b), as it has long-lived
volcanic activity above a relatively stable volcanic conduit
(Gamble et al. 2003). Although Ruapehu’s central vent
has also changed position from time to time (Gamble et al.
2003), these vent location changes were not as great as in
the case of the TVC. In this sense, the TVC shows a tran-
sitional character from a sensu stricto polygenetic volcano
towards a compound small-to-moderate volume volcanic
complex. The long eruptive history of its individual volca-
noes and the stable melt source beneath them makes TVC
to be a group of individual small-to-medium volume volca-
noes. However, at depth, the plumbing system of a TVC-like
volcanic complex is likely to be different from a typical dis-
persed volcanic field’s plumbing system by having a more
pronounced and larger cumulative volume of shallow-level
magma storage places (e.g. magma chambers). Volcanic
complexes similar to the TVC but smaller can be recognized
in many “mature” volcanic fields in intra-continental set-
tings. Therefore, the existence of TVC-like volcanoes raises
the question outlined earlier: that in mature volcanic fields
conduit localization or focus may lead to the development
of compound volcano complexes from small eruptions.
Such evolutional trends have been noted at the Trans-Mex-
ican Volcanic Belt, south-western USA (e.g. Pinacate) or in
the Arabian Peninsula. These volcanic fields are commonly
13
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
referred to as “monogenetic”, but in fact they tend to host
numerous compound and large-volume complex volcanic
edifices (Gutmann and Sheridan 1978; Hasenaka and Car-
michael 1985; Camp et al. 1991; Hasenaka 1994; Conway
et al. 1997; Connor and Conway 2000). This potential evo-
lutional trend of monogenetic volcanic fields fits well to our
proposed conceptual model that there must be transitional
volcanoes that in their present state represent a mature stage
of the otherwise dispersed volcanic system.
Following the above argument, there is another grey area
in the definition of a monogenetic volcano. Most of the poly-
genetic volcanoes, which operate over tens of thousands of
years through a relatively stable central conduit network and
are fed from a stabile shallow magma source, tend to have
small-volume flank eruption sites (Fig. 7b). In many cases,
these flank volcanoes are small volume (e.g. small scoria
cones, tuff rings or maars), such as the Ohakune volcano in
the southern flank of the Ruapehu volcano in New Zealand
(Houghton and Hackett 1984), and fulfil all the common
and conventionally used definitions of a monogenetic vol-
cano. However, these volcanoes are likely to be linked with
the melts stored in the main shallow magma storage system
of the central volcano. An even better example to highlight
this situation is the Lamongan volcanic field in Java where
flank eruptions produced large numbers of maars, tuff rings
and scoria cones, which individually can be referred to as
monogenetic volcanoes (Carn 2000), while they are located
over a large polygenetic volcanic edifice. It is likely that the
eruption mechanism of those flank volcanoes is strongly
controlled by the magmatic plumbing system, which feeds
the central volcano (Carn 2000), but still individually they
fulfil the criteria to be called monogenetic volcanoes. There
are, however, other possibilities when the magma plumbing
system feeding the central volcano has no direct link to the
small-volume, “monogenetic-style” flank volcanoes, and
they are fed directly from deep sources. This implies that
the flank volcano just happened to form on the flank of a
large polygenetic volcano with which it has no direct mag-
matic connection (Fig. 7b). We would consider the volca-
noes in above scenario to still be monogenetic, but clearly
distinct from those formed through a dispersed conduit net-
work in a volcanic field. While the above argument may be
somewhat speculative, it is worthwhile following the logical
establishment of the volcanic architecture in such situations,
especially when there is a limited exposure available of the
volcanic edifices. In ancient settings, such as the volcanic
fields in Central Europe from the Eifel to Bakony–Balaton
Highland, we are likely to rely on indirect geological infor-
mation of various mapped volcanic rock units, commonly
with just relative age information. At least considering the
basic arguments outlined above could help to establish a
geological reconstruction that may realistically fit to a vol-
canic framework.
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
Conclusion: a new look at monogenetic volcanoes
and future perspectives
In this paper, we have discussed the validity of the term
“monogenetic volcano”. We have identified key param-
eters that can be used to define a “monogenetic volcano”
using the small eruptive (and edifice) volume, the short
eruption history and the relatively simple conduit as key
parameters for the definition. It has been demonstrated
that there are several “departure” points from a sensu
stricto monogenetic volcano, primarily the variation in
the length of eruptive episodes and their time separa-
tion, as well as the total eruptive volume. It seems that
there is a typical value for the above-listed parameters.
It has also been shown that the departure from the sensu
stricto monogenetic volcanoes creates a nearly continuous
spectrum of volcano types constraining numerous “tran-
sitional” volcanoes that could be difficult to classify. In
addition, it has been recommended that the magma source
and the number and spacing of conduits can also be used
to separate monogenetic volcanoes from polygenetic ones.
It has also been demonstrated that eruption style changes
do not necessarily correspond to significant time breaks,
in spite of the fact that they can leave significant and easy
to recognize sedimentary textures, indicative of breaks in
the eruption. However, the length of breaks needs to be
clearly defined. In a typical monogenetic volcano’s stra-
tigraphy, however, breaks can be linked to intermittent
volcanic activity. We recommended application of the
transitional concept between monogenetic and polygen-
etic volcanoes. To express the various eruption styles and
their order in the eruption sequence, a numerical system
can be used to capture the main eruption type of the vol-
cano. In such a numerical system, individual volcanoes,
especially in a volcanic field, can be graded. The grading
system could open up a method to characterize the vol-
cano types and their hazards in a refined way.
Overall, we think that the term “monogenetic volcano”
is useful and should be kept. However, it is very important
that, before it is applied to define a volcano, we explore
at least the following aspects: total eruptive volume, total
eruption duration, the eruption style and number of vol-
canic conduits associated with the studied volcano.
In the future, we recommend comparing various vol-
canic fields and classifying their volcanoes to test volcano-
type distribution through young and mature volcanic fields,
such as those that exist in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt
or in the Arabian Peninsula. The volumetric size distribu-
tion and global-scale comparisons of fields that developed
in various geological setting may provide vital clues to
understanding the enigma of the continuum between mono-
genetic and polygenetic volcanoes.
2143
Acknowledgments The original lecture that formed the basis of this
paper was presented as a keynote lecture during the Basalt 2013 con-
ference in Görlitz, Germany. To make that happen, we have to say a
big thank you to the conference organizers, particularly to Jörg Büchner
(Senckenberg Museum of Natural History Görlitz), Olaf Tietz (Senck-
enberg Museum of Natural History Görlitz) and Vladislav Rapprich
(Czech Geological Survey, Prague), for the invitation to present the
keynote speech. This paper also contains numerous aspects of the sub-
ject presented during Basalt 2013 in the form of posters, particularly by
Javier Agustin-Flores (Massey University), Hugo Murcia (University of
Auckland) and Bob Stewart (Massey University). We would also like
to say thank you to Zoltán Pécskay (ATOMKI, Debrecen) who encour-
aged us to prepare this review and managed the successful volcanology
session during the Basalt 2013 meeting. Comments by Mark Bebbing-
ton and Kate Arentsen (both from Massey University) helped to keep
the manuscript focused and reader friendly. Journal reviewers, Gianluca
Groppelli, Volker Lorenz and Greg Valentine, have provided enlighten-
ing reviews that also contributed significantly to improving this paper.
References
Agustin-Flores J, Siebe C, Guilbaud M-N (2011) Geology and geo-
chemistry of Pelagatos, Cerro del Agua, and Dos Cerros mono-
genetic volcanoes in the Sierra Chichinautzin volcanic field,
south of Mexico City. J Volcanol Geoth Res 201(1–4):143–162
Agustin-Flores J, Németh K, Cronin SJ, Lindsay JM, Kereszturi G, Brand
BD, Smith IEM (2014) Phreatomagmatic eruptions through uncon-
solidated coastal plain sequences, Maungataketake, Auckland vol-
canic field (New Zealand). J Volcanol Geoth Res 276:46–63
Andrew REB, Gudmundsson A (2007) Distribution, structure, and
formation of Holocene lava shields in Iceland. J Volcanol Geoth
Res 168(1–4):137–154
Auer A, Martin U, Németh K (2007) The Fekete-hegy (Balaton High-
land Hungary) “soft-substrate” and “hard-substrate” maar vol-
canoes in an aligned volcanic complex—Implications for vent
geometry, subsurface stratigraphy and the paleoenvironmental
setting. J Volcanol Geoth Res 159(1–3):225–245
Blaikie TN, Ailleres L, Cas RAF, Betts PG (2012) Three-dimensional
potential field modelling of a multi-vent maar-diatreme—The
Lake Coragulac maar, Newer Volcanics Province, south-eastern
Australia. J Volcanol Geoth Res 235:70–83
Bolos X, Planaguma L, Marti J (2014) Volcanic stratigraphy of the
Quaternary La Garrotxa volcanic field (north-east Iberian Pen-
insula). J Quat Sci 29(6):547–560
Breard ECP, Lube G, Cronin SJ, Fitzgerald R, Kennedy B, Scheu B,
Montanaro C, White JDL, Tost M, Procter JN, Moebis A (2014)
Using the spatial distribution and lithology of ballistic blocks to
interpret eruption sequence and dynamics: August 6 2012 Upper Te
Maari eruption, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res 286:373–386
Brenna M, Cronin SJ, Smith IEM, Sohn YK, Németh K (2010)
Mechanisms driving polymagmatic activity at a monogenetic
volcano, Udo, Jeju Island, South Korea. Contrib Miner Petrol
160(6):931–950
Brenna M, Cronin SJ, Németh K, Smith IEM, Sohn YK (2011) The
influence of magma plumbing complexity on monogenetic
eruptions, Jeju Island, Korea. Terra Nova 23(2):70–75
Brenna M, Cronin SJ, Smith IEM, Sohn YK, Maas R (2012) Spatio-
temporal evolution of a dispersed magmatic system and its
implications for volcano growth, Jeju Island Volcanic Field,
Korea. Lithos 148:337–352
Camp VE, Roobol MJ (1989) The Arabian Continental Alkali Basalt
Province. 1. Evolution of Harrat-Rahat, Rahat, Kingdom-of-
Saudi-Arabia. Geol Soc Am Bull 101(1):71–95
13
2144
Camp VE, Roobol MJ, Hooper PR (1991) The Arabian Continental
Alkali Basalt Province. 2. Evolution of Harrats Khaybar, Ith-
nayn, and Kura, Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia. Geol Soc Am Bull
103(3):363–391
Carn SA (2000) The Lamongan volcanic field, East Java, Indonesia:
physical volcanology, historic activity and hazards. J Volcanol
Geoth Res 95:81–108
Cole JW, Graham IJ, Hackett WR, Houghton BF (1986) Volcanology
and petrology of the quaternary composite volcanoes of Ton-
gariro volcanic centre, Taupo volcanic zone. Bull R Soc New
Zealand 23:224–250
Connor CB, Conway FM (2000) Basaltic volcanic fields. In: Sigur-
dsson H (ed) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic Press, San
Diego, pp 331–343
Connor CB, Lichtner PC, Conway FM, Hill BE, Ovsyannikov AA,
Federchenko I, Doubik Y, Shapar VN, Taran YA (1997) Cooling
of an igneous dike 20 year after intrusion. Geology 25(8):711–714
Conway FM, Ferrill DA, Hall CM, Morris AP, Stamatakos JA, Connor
CB, Halliday AN, Condit C (1997) Timing of basaltic volcan-
ism along the Mesa Butte Fault in the San Francisco volcanic
field, Arizona, from 40Ar/39Ar dates: implications for longev-
ity of cinder cone alignments. J Geophys Res 102(B1):815–824
Courtland LM, Kruse SE, Connor CB, Connor LJ, Savov IP, Martin
KT (2012) GPR investigation of tephra fallout, Cerro Negro
volcano, Nicaragua: a method for constraining parameters used
in tephra sedimentation models. Bull Volc 74(6):1409–1424
Courtland L, Kruse S, Connor C (2013) Violent Strombolian or not?
Using ground-penetrating radar to distinguish deposits of low-
and high-energy scoria cone eruptions. Bull Volc 75(12):1–13
Delgado Granados H, Martin del Pozzo AL (1993) Pliocene to Holo-
cene volcanic geology at the junction of Las Cruces, Chichin-
autzin and Ajusco ranges, southwest of Mexico City. Geofis Int
32(3):511–522
Erlund EJ, Cashman KV, Wallace PJ, Pioli L, Rosi M, Johnson E,
Granados HD (2010) Compositional evolution of magma from
Paricutin Volcano, Mexico: the tephra record. J Volcanol Geoth
Res 197(1–4):167–187
Fisher RV, Schmincke H-U (1984) Pyroclastic rocks. Springer, Hei-
delberg, pp 1–474
Foshag WF, Gonzalez RJ (1956) Birth and development of Paricu-
tin volcano, Mexico. United States Geological Survey Bulletin
965-D:355-489
Gamble JA, Price RC, Smith IEM, McIntosh WC, Dunbar NW (2003)
Ar-40/Ar-39 geochronology of magmatic activity, magma flux
and hazards at Ruapehu volcano, Taupo Volcanic Zone, New
Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res 120(3–4):271–287
Genareau K, Valentine GA, Moore G, Hervig RL (2010) Mechanisms
for transition in eruptive style at a monogenetic scoria cone
revealed by microtextural analyses (Lathrop Wells volcano,
Nevada, USA). Bull Volc 72(5):593–607
Godchaux M, Bonnichsen B (2002) Syneruptive magma-water and
posteruptive lava-water interactions in the Western Snake River
Plain, Idaho, during the past 12 million years. In: Bonnichsen
B, White CM, McCurry M (eds) Tectonic and magmatic evolu-
tion of the Snake River Plain Volcanic Province. University of
Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, Idaho Geological Survey, pp 387–435
Greeley R (1982) The Snake River Plain, Idaho: representative of a
new category of volcanism. J Geophys Res 87(B4):2705–2712
Guilbaud M-N, Siebe C, Layer P, Salinas S, Castro-Govea R, Gar-
duno-Monroy VH, Le Corvec N (2011) Geology, geochronol-
ogy, and tectonic setting of the Jorullo Volcano region, Michoa-
can, Mexico. J Volcanol Geoth Res 201(1–4):97–112
Gutmann JT (2002) Strombolian and effusive activity as precursors
to phreatomagmatism: eruptive sequence at maars of the Pina-
cate volcanic field, Sonora, Mexico. J Volcanol Geoth Res
113(1–2):345–356
13
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
Gutmann JT, Sheridan M (1978) Geology of the Pinacate volcanic
field. Arizona Bur Geol Mining Tech Spec Pap 2:47–59
Hasenaka T (1994) Size, distribution, and magma output rate for
shield volcanoes of the Michoacan-Guanajuato volcanic field,
Central Mexico. J Volcanol Geoth Res 63(1–2):13–31
Hasenaka T, Carmichael ISE (1985) A compilation of location, size,
and geomorphological parameters of volcanoes of the Micho-
acan-Guanajuato volcanic field, central Mexico. Geofis Int
24(4):577–608
Hasenaka T, Carmichael ISE (1987) The cinder cones of Michoacán-
Guanajuato, Central Mexico: petrology and chemistry. J Petrol
28(2):241–269
Herrero-Hernandez A, Javier Lopez-Moro F, Luis Gallardo-Millan J,
Martin-Serrano A, Gomez-Fernandez F (2015) Volcanism-sedi-
mentation interaction in the Campo de Calatrava volcanic field
(Spain): a magnetostratigraphic and geochronological study. Int
J Earth Sci 104(1):103–122
Hill BE, Connor CB, Jarzemba MS, La Femina PC, Navarro M,
Strauch W (1998) 1995 eruptions of Cerro Negro volcano, Nic-
aragua, and risk assessment for future eruptions. Geol Soc Am
Bull 110(10):1231–1241
Hobden BJ, Houghton BF, Lanphere MA, Nairn IA (1996) Growth of
the Tongariro volcanic complex: new evidence from K-Ar age
determinations. NZ J Geol Geophys 39(1):151–154
Hobden BJ, Houghton BF, Davidson JP, Weaver SD (1999) Small and
short-lived magma batches at composite volcanoes: time win-
dows at Tongariro volcano, New Zealand. Journal of theological
Society 156:865–868
Hoshizumi H, Uto K, Watanabe K (1999) Geology and eruptive his-
tory of Unzen volcano, Shimabara Peninsula, Kyushu, SW
Japan. J Volcanol Geoth Res 89(1–4):81–94
Houghton BF, Gonnermann HM (2008) Basaltic explosive vol-
canism: constraints from deposits and models. Chem Erde
68:117–140
Houghton BF, Hackett WR (1984) Strombolian and phreatomag-
matic deposits of Ohakune Craters, Ruapehu, New Zealand; a
complex interaction between external water and rising basaltic
magma. J Volcanol Geoth Res 21(3–4):207–231
Houghton BF, Wilson CJN, Smith IEM (1999) Shallow-seated con-
trols on styles of explosive basaltic volcanism: a case study
from New Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res 91(1):97–120
Inbar M, Hubp JL, Ruiz LV (1994) The geomorphological evolution
of the Paricutin cone and lava flows, Mexico, 1943–1990. Geo-
morphology 9:57–76
Inbar M, Gilichinsky M, Melekestsev I, Melnikov D, Zaretskaya
N (2011) Morphometric and morphological development of
Holocene cinder cones: a field and remote sensing study in the
Tolbachik volcanic field, Kamchatka. J Volcanol Geoth Res
201(1–4):301–311
Jankovics EM, Harangi S, Kiss B, Ntaflos T (2012) Open system evo-
lution of the Fuzes-to alkaline basaltic magma, western Pannon-
ian Basin; constraints from mineral textures and compositions.
Lithos 140–141:25–37
Jordan SC, Cas RAF, Hayman PC (2013) The origin of a large
(>3 km) maar volcano by coalescence of multiple shallow cra-
ters: lake Purrumbete maar, southeastern Australia. J Volcanol
Geoth Res 254:5–22
Jordan SC, Jowitt SM, Cas RAF (2015) Origin of temporal—com-
positional variations during the eruption of Lake Purrumbete
Maar, Newer Volcanics Province, southeastern Australia. Bull
Volc 77(1):1–15
Kereszturi G, Németh K (2012) Monogenetic basaltic olcanoes:
genetic classification, growth, geomorphology and degradation.
In: Németh K (ed) Updates in volcanology—new advances in
understanding volcanic systems. InTech Open, Rijeka, Croatia,
pp 3–89
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
Kereszturi G, Csillag G, Németh K, Sebe K, Balogh K, Jáger V
(2010) Volcanic architecture, eruption mechanism and land-
form evolution of a Pliocene intracontinental basaltic polycyclic
monogenetic volcano from the Bakony-Balaton highland vol-
canic field, Hungary. Cent Eur J Geosci 2(3):362–384
Kereszturi G, Németh K, Csillag G, Balogh K, Kovács J (2011) The
role of external environmental factors in changing eruption
styles of monogenetic volcanoes in a Mio/Pleistocene conti-
nental volcanic field in western Hungary. J Volcanol Geoth Res
201(1–4):227–240
Kereszturi G, Németh K, Cronin SJ, Agustín-Flores J, Smith IEM,
Lindsay J (2013) A model for calculating eruptive volumes
for monogenetic volcanoes—implication for the Quaternary
Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res
266:16–33
Kereszturi G, Németh K, Cronin SJ, Procter J, Agustin-Flores J
(2014) Influences on the variability of eruption sequences and
style transitions in the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. J
Volcanol Geoth Res 286:101–115
Kiyosugi K, Connor CB, Zhao D, Connor LJ, Tanaka K (2010) Rela-
tionships between volcano distribution, crustal structure, and
P-wave tomography: an example from the Abu Monogenetic
Volcano Group, SW Japan. Bull Volcanol 72(3):331–340
Kshirsagar PV, Sheth HC, Shaikh B (2011) Mafic alkalic magmatism
in central Kachchh, India: a monogenetic volcanic field in the
northwestern Deccan Traps. Bull Volc 73(5):595–612
Le Corvec N, Bebbington MS, Lindsay JM, McGee LE (2013a)
Age, distance, and geochemical evolution within a monoge-
netic volcanic field: analyzing patterns in the Auckland Vol-
canic Field eruption sequence. Geochem Geophys Geosyst
14(9):3648–3665
Le Corvec N, Spoerli KB, Rowland J, Lindsay J (2013b) Spatial dis-
tribution and alignments of volcanic centers: clues to the forma-
tion of monogenetic volcanic fields. Earth Sci Rev 124:96–114
Lorenz V (1985) Maars and diatremes of phreatomagmatic origin: a
review. Trans Geol Soc South Afr 88:459–470
Lorenz V (1986) On the growth of maars and diatremes and its rel-
evance to the formation of tuff rings. Bull Volc 48:265–274
Luhr JF, Carmichael ISE (1985) Jorullo volcano, Michoacan, Mexico
(1759–1774): the earlier stages of fractionation in calk-alkaline
magmas. Contrib Mineral Petrol 90:142–161
Luhr JF, Simkin T (1993) Paricutin. The volcano born in a Mexican
cornfield. Geosciences Press, Phoenix, pp 1–427
MacDonald GA (1972) Volcanoes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
pp 1–510
Manville V, Németh K, Kano K (2009) Source to sink: a review of
three decades of progress in the understanding of volcaniclastic
processes, deposits, and hazards. Sed Geol 220:136–161
McGee LE, Beier C, Smith IEM, Turner SP (2011) Dynamics of
melting beneath a small-scale basaltic system: a U-Th-Ra study
from Rangitoto volcano, Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand.
Contrib Miner Petrol 162(3):547–563
McGee LE, Smith IEM, Millet M-A, Handley HK, Lindsay AM
(2013) Asthenospheric control of melting processes in a mono-
genetic basaltic system: a case study of the Auckland Volcanic
Field, New Zealand. J Petrol 54(10):2125–2153
McKnight SB, Williams SN (1997) Old cinder cone or young com-
posite volcano? The nature of Cerro Negro, Nicaragua. Geology
25(4):339–342
Moufti MR, Németh K (2013) The intra-continental Al Madinah Vol-
canic Field, Western Saudi Arabia: a proposal to establish Har-
rat Al Madinah as the first volcanic geopark in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Geoheritage 5(3):185–206
Murcia H, Németh K, Moufti MR, Lindsay JM, El-Masry N, Cronin
SJ, Qaddah A, Smith IEM (2014) Late Holocene lava flow mor-
photypes of northern Harrat Rahat, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:
2145
implications for the description of continental lava fields. J
Asian Earth Sci 84:131–145
Nakada S, Shimizu H, Ohta K (1999) Overview of the 1990–
1995 eruption at Unzen Volcano. J Volcanol Geoth Res
89(1–4):1–22
Nakagawa M, Nairn IA, Kobayashi T (1998) The similar to 10 ka
multiple vent pyroclastic eruption sequence at Tongariro Vol-
canic Centre, Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand—Part 2.
Petrological insights into magma storage and transport during
regional extension. J Volcanol Geoth Res 86(1–4):45–65
Needham AJ, Lindsay JM, Smith IEM, Augustinus P, Shane PA
(2011) Sequential eruption of alkaline and sub-alkaline magmas
from a small monogenetic volcano in the Auckland Volcanic
Field, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res 201(1–4):126–142
Németh K (2010) Monogenetic volcanic fields: origin, sedimentary
record, and relationship with polygenetic volcanism. In: Canon-
Tapia E, Szakacs A (eds) What Is a Volcano?. Geological Soci-
ety of America, Boulder, pp 43–66
Németh K, Martin U, Harangi S (2001) Miocene phreatomagmatic
volcanism at Tihany (Pannonian Basin, Hungary). J Volcanol
Geoth Res 111(1–4):111–135
Németh K, Haller MJ, Siebe C (2011) Maars and scoria cones: the
enigma of monogenetic volcanic fields. Journal of Volcanology
and Geothermal Research 201(1–4):V–VIII
Pardo N, Cronin SJ, Palmer AS, Németh K (2012) Reconstructing
the largest explosive eruptions of Mt. Ruapehu, New Zealand:
lithostratigraphic tools to understand subplinian-plinian erup-
tions at andesitic volcanoes. Bull Volc 74(3):617–640
Pardo N, Cronin SJ, Németh K, Brenna M, Schipper CI, Breard E,
White JDL, Procter J, Stewart B, Agustin-Flores J, Moebis A,
Zernack A, Kereszturi G, Lube G, Auer A, Neall V, Wallace C
(2014) Perils in distinguishing phreatic from phreatomagmatic
ash; insights into the eruption mechanisms of the 6 August 2012
Mt. Tongariro eruption, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geoth Res
286:397–414
Parfitt EA (2004) A discussion of the mechanisms of explosive basal-
tic eruptions. J Volcanol Geoth Res 134(1–2):77–107
Pedersen GBM, Grosse P (2014) Morphometry of subaerial shield
volcanoes and glaciovolcanoes from Reykjanes Peninsula, Ice-
land: effects of eruption environment. J Volcanol Geoth Res
282:115–133
Pioli L, Erlund E, Johnson E, Cashman K, Wallace R, Rosi M, Gra-
nados HD (2008) Explosive dynamics of violent Strombolian
eruptions: the eruption of Paricutin Volcano 1943–1952 (Mex-
ico). Earth Planet Sci Lett 271(1–4):359–368
Procter JN, Cronin SJ, Zernack AV, Lube G, Stewart RB, Németh K,
Keys H (2014) Debris flow evolution and the activation of an
explosive hydrothermal system; Te Maari, Tongariro, New Zea-
land. J Volcanol Geoth Res 286:303–316
Riggs N, Carrasco-Nunez G (2004) Evolution of a complex iso-
lated dome system, Cerro Pizarro, central Mexico. Bull Volc
66(4):322–335
Rowland SK, Jurado-Chichay Z, Ernst WG, Walker GPL (2009) Pyro-
clastic deposits and lava flows from the 1759–1774 eruption of
El Jorullo, Mexico; aspects of “violent Strombolian” activity
and comparison with Paricutin. Spec Publ Int Assoc Volcanol
Chem Earth’s Interior 2:105–128
Runge MG, Bebbington MS, Cronin SJ, Lindsay JM, Kenedi CL,
Moufti MRH (2014) Vents to events: determining an eruption
event record from volcanic vent structures for the Harrat Rahat,
Saudi Arabia. Bull Volcanol 76(3):1–16
Shane P, Gehrels M, Zawalna-Geer A, Augustinus P, Lindsay J, Chail-
lou I (2013) Longevity of a small shield volcano revealed by
crypto-tephra studies (Rangitoto volcano, New Zealand):
change in eruptive behavior of a basaltic field. J Volcanol Geoth
Res 257:174–183
13
2146
Shaw SJ, Woodland AB, Hopp J, Trenholm ND (2010) Structure and
evolution of the Rockeskyllerkopf Volcanic Complex, West
Eifel Volcanic Field, Germany. Bull Volc 72:971–990
Sheth H (2014) What drives centuries-long polygenetic scoria
cone activity at Barren Island volcano? J Volcanol Geoth Res
289:64–80
Sheth H, Cañón-Tapia E (2015) Are flood basalt eruptions mono-
genetic or polygenetic? Int J Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/
s00531-014-1048-z
Siebe C, Rodriguez-Lara V, Schaaf P, Abrams M (2004a) Geochem-
istry, Sr-Nd isotope composition, and tectonic setting of Holo-
cene Pelado, Guespalapa and Chichinautzin scoria cones, south
of Mexico city. J Volcanol Geoth Res 130(3–4):197–226
Siebe C, Rodriguez-Lara V, Schaaf P, Abrams M (2004b) Radiocar-
bon ages of Holocene Pelado, Guespalapa, and Chichinautzin
scoria cones, south of Mexico City: implications for archaeol-
ogy and future hazards. Bull Volc 66(3):203–225
Sohn YK (1996) Hydrovolcanic processes forming basaltic tuff
rings and cones on Cheju Island, Korea. Geol Soc Am Bull
108(10):1199–1211
Tadini A, Bonali FL, Corazzato C, Cortes JA, Tibaldi A, Valentine
GA (2014) Spatial distribution and structural analysis of vents
in the Lunar Crater Volcanic Field (Nevada, USA). Bull Volc
76(11):1–15
Takada A (1994) The influence of regional stress and magmatic input
on styles of monogenetic and polygenetic volcanism. J Geophys
Res 99(B7):13563–13573
Tchamabe BC, Youmen D, Owona S, Issa Ohba T, Neemeth K,
Ngapna MN, Asaah ANE, Aka FT, Tanyileke G, Hell JV (2013)
Eruptive history of the Barombi Mbo Maar, Cameroon Volcanic
Line, Central Africa: constraints from volcanic facies analysis.
Cent Eur J Geosci 5(4):480–496
Valentine GA (2012) Shallow plumbing systems for small-volume
basaltic volcanoes, 2: evidence from crustal xenoliths at scoria
cones and maars. J Volcanol Geoth Res 223:47–63
Valentine GA, Cortes JA (2013) Time and space variations in mag-
matic and phreatomagmatic eruptive processes at Easy Chair
(Lunar Crater Volcanic Field, Nevada, USA). Bull Volc
75(9):1–13
13
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2015) 104:2131–2146
Valentine GA, de Vries BvW (2014) Unconventional maar diatreme
and associated intrusions in the soft sediment-hosted Mardoux
structure (Gergovie, France). Bull Volc 76(3):1–16
Valentine GA, Gregg TKP (2008) Continental basaltic volcanoes—
processes and problems. J Volcanol Geoth Res 177(4):857–873
Valentine GA, White JDL (2012) Revised conceptual model for maar-
diatremes: subsurface processes, energetics, and eruptive prod-
ucts. Geology 40(12):1111–1114
Valentine GA, Perry FV, Krier D, Keating GN, Kelley RE, Coghill
AH (2006) Small-volume basaltic volcanoes: Eruptive prod-
ucts and processes, and posteruptive geomorphic evolution in
Crater Flat (Pleistocene), southern Nevada. Geol Soc Am Bull
118(11–12):1313–1330
Valentine GA, Graettinger AH, Sonder I (2014) Explosion depths for
phreatomagmatic eruptions. Geophys Res Lett 41(9):3045–3051
van Otterloo J, Cas RAF, Sheard MJ (2013) Eruption processes and
deposit characteristics at the monogenetic Mt. Gambier Vol-
canic Complex, SE Australia: implications for alternating mag-
matic and phreatomagmatic activity. Bull Volc 75(8):1–21
Van Otterloo J, Raveggi M, Cas RAF, Maas R (2014) Polymagmatic
activity at the monogenetic Mt Gambier Volcanic Complex in
the Newer Volcanics Province, SE Australia: new insights into
the occurrence of intraplate volcanic activity in Australia. J Pet-
rol 55(7):1317–1351
Vespermann D, Schmincke H-U, Ballard RD (2000) Scoria cones and
tuff rings. In: Sigurdsson H, Houghton BF, McNutt SR, Rymer
H, Stix J (eds) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic Press, San
Diego, pp 683–694
Walker GPL (1993) Basaltic-volcano systems. In: Prichard HM, Ala-
baster T, Harris NBW, Nearly CR (eds) Magmatic processes
and plate tectonics. Geological Society, London, Special Pub-
lications, pp 3–38
Walker GPL (2000) Basaltic volcanoes and volcanic systems. In: Sig-
urdsson H (ed) Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Academic Press,
San Diego, pp 283–289
White JDL, Ross PS (2011) Maar-diatreme volcanoes: a review. J
Volcanol Geoth Res 201(1–4):1–29
Williams H, McBirney AR (1979) Volcanology. Freeman, Cooper &
Co., San Francisco, pp 1–397