The eruption at Volcán de Colima (México) on 10–11 July 2015 represents the most violent eruption that has occurred at this volcano since the 1913 Plinian eruption. The extraordinary runout of the associated pyroclastic flows was never observed during the past dome collapse events in 1991 or 2004–2005. Based on Satellite Pour l’Observation de la Terre
(SPOT) and Earth Observing-1
(EO-1) ALI (Advanced Land Imager), the chronology of the different eruptive phases from September 2014 to September 2016 is reconstructed here. A digital image segmentation procedure allowed for the mapping of the trajectory of the lava flows emplaced on the main cone as well as the pyroclastic flow deposits that inundated the Montegrande ravine on the southern flank of the volcano. Digital surface models (DSMs) obtained from SPOT/6 dual-stereoscopic and tri-stereopair images were used to estimate the volumes of some lava flows and the main pyroclastic flow deposits. We estimated that the total volume of the magma that erupted during the 2014–2016 event was approximately 40 × 107
, which is one order of magnitude lower than that of the 1913 Plinian eruption. These data are fundamental for improving hazard assessment because the July 2015 eruption represents a unique scenario that has never before been observed at Volcán de Colima. Volume estimation provides complementary data to better understand eruptive processes, and detailed maps of the distributions of lava flows and pyroclastic flows represent fundamental tools for calibrating numerical modeling for hazard assessment. The stereo capabilities of the SPOT6/7 satellites for the detection of topographic changes and the and the availability of EO-1 ALI imagery are useful tools for reconstructing multitemporal eruptive events, even in areas that are not accessible due to ongoing eruptive activity.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited