Morphology and Spatial Distribution of Cinder Cones at
Newberry Volcano, Oregon: Implications for Relative
Ages and Structural Control on Eruptive Process
Steve Taylor
Earth and Physical Sciences Department
Western Oregon University
Monmouth, Oregon 97361
• Introduction
• Geologic Setting
• Morphometric Analysis
• Cone Alignment Analysis
• Summary and Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
History of Newberry Work at Western Oregon University
2000
Friends of the Pleistocene Field Trip to Newberry Volcano
2002-2003
Giles and others, GIS Compilation and Digitization of
Newberry Geologic Map (after MacLeod and others, 1995)
2003
Taylor and others, Cinder Cone Volume and Morphometric
Analysis I (GSA Fall Meeting)
2005
Taylor and others, Spatial Analysis of Cinder Cone
Distribution II (GSA Fall Meeting)
2007
Taylor and others, Synthesis of Cinder Cone Morphometric
and Spatial Analyses (GSA Cordilleran Section Meeting)
2001-Present
Templeton, Petrology and Volcanology of Pleistocene
Ash-Flow Tuffs (GSA Cordilleran Meeting 2004; Oregon
Academy of Science, 2007; GSA Annual Meeting 2009; AGU
Annual Meeting 2010)
2011-Present
Taylor and WOU Students, ES407 Senior Seminar Project,
Pilot Testing of Lidar Methodologies on Cinder Cone
Morphometry
NOTE: Work presented today was conducted in pre-Lidar days mid-2000’s
Geologic Setting
124 W
120 W
122 W
118 W
MJ
Cascades
Cascades
MH
Deschutes-Umatilla
Plateau
Blue Mountains
TFZ
Coast
Western
MW
TS
1
High
Cascadia
44 N
Subduction
Zone
Range
4.5 cm /yr
Willa
mett
e Va
lley
46 N
WRFZ
BFZ
High Lava
Plains
5
6
CL
7
Klamath
Mountains
8
Owyhee
Upland
9
10
Basin and Range
42 N
0
Extent of Newberry Lava Flows
Newberry Caldera
Rhyolite Isochrons (Ma)
Faults:
TFZ = Tumalo Fault Zone
WRFZ = Walker Rim Fault Zone
BFZ = Brother Fault Zone
100 km
9
122W
120W
Extent of Newberry
lava flows
Rhyolite isochrons ( Ma)
0
100
TFZ
km
Newberry Caldera
Fault Zones:
HLP
44N
BFZ=Brothers
TFZ = Tumalo
WRFZ=Walker Rim
BFZ
CR
1
WRFZ 5
BR
6
7
1
6
9 10
8
Geology after Walker and MacLeod
(1991); Isochrons in 1 m.y. increments
(after MacLeod and others, 1976)
Basalt and basaltic andesite flows:
early Pleistocene to Holocene
Basaltic Flows (Pl.- H)
Rhyolite to dacite domes, flows, pumice rings,
and vent complexes: early Pleistocene to
Holocene
Pumice falls, ash flows, and alluvial deposits:
Pleistocene to Holocene
Andesite Tuff (west flank): Pleistocene
Black Lapilli Tuff (west flank): Pleistocene
Alluvial deposits with interbedded lapilli tuff, ash
flow tuff, and pumice fall deposits: Pleistocene
Tepee Draw Tuff (east flank): Pleistocene
Tepee Draw Tuff
Basalt and basaltic andesite of small shields:
Pleistocene
Fluvial and lacustrine sediments: Pleistocene
and Pliocene(?)
Basalt, basaltic andesite, and andesite flows, ash
flow tuffs, and pumice deposits of the Cascade
Range: Pleistocene
Basalt flows and interbedded cinders and scoria
deposits: late Miocene
Rhyolite and andesite flows, domes, and
pyroclastic rocks of Pine Mountain: early
Miocene
Caldera
Newberry Caldera complex
Cinder Cones “Qc”
Cinder cones and fissure vents
Faults
0
5 km
Study
Area
Oregon
Southeast Cinder Cone Field
Lava Butte: Poster child of cone youth…
GEOMORPHIC ANALYSIS OF
CINDER CONES
Cinder Cone Morphology and Degradation Over Time
Wcr
Hco
S
Wcr = crater diameter
Wco = cone basal diameter
Hco = cone height
S = average cone slope
(Dohrenwend et al., 1986)
Wco
MASS WASTING AND SLOPE WASH PROCESSES:
Transfer primary cone mass to debris apron
•
•
•
•
•
Cone Relief Decreases
Cone Slope Decreases
Hco/Wco Ratio Decreases
Loss of Cater Definition
Increased Drainage Density
(Valentine et al., 2006)
Cone Alignment Via Fracture-Related
Plumbing 122
120W
Newberry: Junction of TumaloBrothers-Walker Rim Fault Zones
0
TFZ
km
HLP
44N
BFZ
CR
1
WRFZ 5
Rooney et al., 2011
BR
6
Basalt and basaltic andesite flows:
early Pleistocene to Holocene
Cinder Cone Research Questions
Rhyolite to dacite domes, flows, pumice rings,
and vent complexes: early Pleistocene to
Holocene
Pumice falls, ash flows, and alluvial deposits:
Pleistocene to Holocene
Are there morphologic groupings of
~400 cinder cones at Newberry? Can
they be quantitatively documented?
Andesite Tuff (west flank): Pleistocene
Black Lapilli Tuff (west flank): Pleistocene
Alluvial deposits with interbedded lapilli tuff, ash
flow tuff, and pumice fall deposits: Pleistocene
Are morphologic groupings
associated with age and state of
erosional degradation?
Tepee Draw Tuff (east flank): Pleistocene
Basalt and basaltic andesite of small shields:
Pleistocene
Fluvial and lacustrine sediments: Pleistocene
and Pliocene(?)
Are there spatial patterns associated
with the frequency, occurrence, and
volume of cinder cones?
Basalt, basaltic andesite, and andesite flows, ash
flow tuffs, and pumice deposits of the Cascade
Range: Pleistocene
Basalt flows and interbedded cinders and scoria
deposits: late Miocene
Rhyolite and andesite flows, domes, and
pyroclastic rocks of Pine Mountain: early
Miocene
Are there spatial alignment patterns?
Can they be statistically documented?
Newberry Caldera complex
Cinder cones and fissure vents
Faults
Do regional stress fields and fracture
mechanics control the emplacement
Study
Area
of cinder
cones
at
Newberry volcano?
0
5 km
Oregon
Methodology


Digital Geologic Map Compilation / GIS of
Newberry Volcano (after McLeod and others, 1995)
GIS analysis of USGS 10-m DEMs

Phase 1 Single Cones/Vents (n = 182)
 Phase 2 Composite Cones/Vents (n = 165)

Morphometric analyses

Cone Relief, Slope, Height/Width Ratio
 Morphometric Classification

Volumetric Analyses

Cone Volume Modeling
 Volume Distribution Analysis

Cone Alignment Analysis

Two-point Line Azimuth Distribution
 Comparative Monte Carlo Modeling (Random vs. Actual)
Single Cone DEM Example
COMPOSITE
(n = 182)
(n = 165)
Composite Cone
DEM Example
RESULTS OF MORPHOMETRIC
ANALYSES – SINGLE CONES
Table 1. Explanation of Qualitative Cone Morphology Rating
Single Cones (n=182)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Good-Excellent
Good
Moderate-Good
Moderate
Moderate-Poor
Poor
Very Poor
Cone shape with vent morphology
Cone shape with less defined vent morphology
Cone shape, lacks well-defined vent morphology
Cone shape, no vent
Cone shape, poor definition
Lacks cone shape
Lacks cone shape, very poorly defined morphology
Lava Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 1)
0
Lava Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 1)
500 m
Lava Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 1)
0
Pumice Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 4)
Hunter Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 7)
500 m
Hunter Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 7)
Pumice Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 4)
Lava Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 1)
Lava Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 1)
0
0
500 m
Hunter Butte
(Cone Morphology Rating = 7)
500 m
n=182
Single Cones
Table 2. Summary of Relevant Cone Morphometry Data.
Cone
Morphology
Class
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class 7
All Cones
No.
Avg Slope (deg) Cone Height (m)
11
21
10
35
35
11
59
Mean Variance
19.9
11.8
18.2
10.5
18.1
2.7
14.9
12.1
14.4
10.6
11.9
13.7
10.2
19.0
182
13.6
24.2
Hco/Wco
Mean Variance Mean Variance
132.4 1344.9
0.18
0.0012
124.4 2282.4
0.20
0.0073
126.2 1991.0
0.19
0.0017
76.2
1918.4
0.15
0.0014
78.1
1682.9
0.15
0.0012
59.5
1721.3
0.13
0.0025
50.4
1401.3
0.14
0.0046
76.4
2520.7
0.2
0.0038
Single Cones
Table 3. Results of Systematic T-Test Analyses.
Cone
Morphology
Class
df

Class 1-Class 2
30
0.05
1.38
0.089
1.70
0.177
2.04
Accept H o
Group I
Class 2-Class 3
29
0.05
0.11
0.458
1.70
0.915
2.05
Accept H o
Group I
Class 3-Class 4
43
0.05
2.85
0.003
1.68
0.007
2.02
RejectHH
Reject
o o
Group II
Class 4-Class 5
44
0.05
0.36
0.360
1.68
0.719
2.02
Accept H o
Group II
Class 5-Class 6
44
0.05
2.05
0.023
1.68
0.046
2.02
Accept H o
Group II
Class 6-Class 7
92
0.05
1.88
0.032
1.66
0.064
1.99
Accept H o
Group II
Class 1-Class 2
30
0.05
0.49
0.315
1.70
0.631
2.04
Accept H o
Group I
Class 2-Class 3
29
0.05
-0.10
0.459
1.70
0.918
2.05
Accept H o
Group I
Class 3-Class 4
43
0.05
3.17
0.001
1.68
0.003
2.02
Reject
RejectHH
o o
Group II
Class 4-Class 5
44
0.05
-0.13
0.450
1.68
0.899
2.02
Accept H o
Group II
Class 5-Class 6
44
0.05
1.30
0.100
1.68
0.200
2.02
Accept H o
Group II
Class 6-Class 7
92
0.05
1.09
0.140
1.66
0.280
1.99
Accept H o
Group II
Class 1-Class 2
30
0.05
-0.61
0.272
1.70
0.545
2.04
Accept H o
Group I
Class 2-Class 3
29
0.05
0.40
0.346
1.70
0.692
2.05
Accept H o
Group I
Hco/Wco Class 3-Class 4
43
0.05
2.92
0.003
1.68
0.006
2.02
RejectHH
Reject
o o
Group II
Class 4-Class 5
44
0.05
0.20
0.420
1.68
0.840
2.02
Accept H o
Group II
Class 5-Class 6
44
0.05
0.93
0.179
1.68
0.359
2.02
Accept H o
Group II
Class 6-Class 7
92
0.05
-0.39
0.349
1.66
0.697
1.99
Accept H o
Group II
Savg
H co
t
t
P(T<=t)
P(T<=t)
Morphometric
t Stat
Critical
Critical Test Result
one-tail
two-tail
Group
one-tail
two-tail
30
Morphometric Group II
n = 11
n = 21
Average Cone Slope (Degrees)
25
n = 35
n = 11
n = 10
n = 59
20
n = 35
15
10
Morphometric Group I
5
Mean
Range
Standard Deviation
0
1
Single Cones
2
3
4
Cone Morphology Rating
5
6
7
250
n = 10
Morphometric Group II
n = 35
200
n = 11
n = 21
n = 35
n = 59
Cone Height (meters)
n = 11
150
100
50
Morphometric Group I
0
1
Single Cones
2
3
4
Cone Morphology Rating
5
6
7
0.6
Morphometric Group II
0.5
Cone Height / Cone Width
n = 21
0.4
n = 59
0.3
n = 10
n = 11
n = 35
n = 35
0.2
n = 11
0.1
Morphometric Group I
0
1
Single Cones
2
3
4
Cone Morphology Rating
5
6
7
Moprhometric Group I
(Morphology Rating
Classes 1, 2, and 3)
“Youthful”
Morphometric Group II
(Morphology Rating
Classes 4, 5, 6, and 7)
“Mature”
Northern Domain
Group I: n = 26 (14%)
Group II: n = 76 (42%)
Newberry
Caldera
0
5 km
Southern Domain
Group I: n = 16 (9%)
Group II: n = 64 (35%)
Single Cones
VOLUMETRIC ANALYSES:
SINGLE + COMPOSITE CONES
VOLUME METHODOLOGY
Original DEM of
A. Original 10-m DEM of
Lava
Lava
ButteButte
Cone
Clip cone footprint from 10-m
USGS DEM (Rectangle 2x Cone
Dimension)
Zero-mask cone elevations,
based on mapped extent from
MacLeod and others (1995)
Re-interpolate “beheaded” cone
elevations using kriging
algorithm
Cone Volume =
(Cone Surface – Mask Surface)
B. Masked 10-m
DEM of
of
Masked
DEM
Lava Butte Cone
Lava Butte
0
500 m
CONE VOLUME SUMMARY
(SINGLE AND COMPOSITE)
Cubic Meters
CONE ALIGNMENT ANALYSES
SINGLE + COMPOSITE
30
0W
REGIONAL FAULTTREND ANALYSIS
Tumalo Fault Zone
n = 142
20
122W
10
0
100
0
TFZ
km
-90
-60
-30
0
BFZ
R
Frequency
30
30
60
90
Walker Rim Fault Zone
n = 92
20
HLP10
0
-90
1
30
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
Brothers Fault Zone
n = 165
20
WRFZ 5
10
BR
6
0
-90
7
8
-60
-30
0
Azimuth
30
60
90
Cone lineaments anyone? Question: How many lines can be created
by connecting the dots between 296 select cone center points?
Answer:
Total Lines = [n(n-1)]/2 =
[296*295]/2 = 43,660
possible line combinations
Follow-up Question: Which cone
lineaments are due to random chance
and which are statistically and
geologically significant?
Frequency
METHODS OF CONE
LINEAMENT ANALYSIS
Azimuth
GIS
Frequency
“POINT-DENSITY
METHOD”
(Zhang and
Lutz, 1989)
“TWO-POINT
METHOD”
(Lutz, 1986)
Azimuth
CONE TWO-POINT ALIGNMENT
ANALYSIS (after Lutz, 1986)
2000
95%
95%Critical
Critical Value
Value
NULL HYPOTHESIS
Distribution of Actual Cone Alignments =
Random Cone Alignments
1000
C.
0
-90
EXPECTED ALIGNMENT FREQUENCY:
FEXP = (n*(n-1) / (2*k))
NORMALIZED ALIGNMENT FREQUENCY:
FNORM = (FEXP / FAVG) * FOBS
FNORM = normalized bin frequency
FEXP = expected bin frequency
FAVG = average random bin frequency
FOBS = observed bin frequency
3000
Frequency
n = No. of Cinder Cones
k = No. of Azimuthal Bins
Normalized Newberry Two-Point Azimuths
Normalized
Cone Azimuths
(Combined
NorthTwo-Point
and South Domains)
B.
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
Two-Point Azimuths: Random Simulation
(Combined North and South Domains)
Random Two-Point Cone Azimuths
n =n296
= cones
296 / /Replicate
replicate
Replicate no. = 300
Replicates
= 300
Line Segments / Replicate
= 43,660
2000
1000
0
-90
3000
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
Two-Point Azimuths: Newberry Cones
ActualNorth
Two-Point
Azimuths
(Combined
and SouthCone
Domains)
=296
296 cones
n =nTotal
Line Segments = 43,660
Line Segments = 43,660
CRITICAL VALUE:
2000
LI = [(FEXP / FAVG) * FAVG] + (tCRIT * RSTD)
1000
FEXP = expected bin frequency
FAVG = average random bin frequency
RSTD = stdev of random bin frequency
tCRIT = t distribution ( = 0.05)
A.
0
-90
-60
-30
0
Azimuth
30
60
90
TWO-POINT ANALYSIS RESULTS
NORTH DOMAIN
SOUTH DOMAIN
Normalized Newberry Two-Point Azimuths
(North Domain)
500
Normalized Newberry Two-Point Azimuths
(South Domain)
600
95%
Critical
95%
Critical
ValueValue
400
95% Critical Value
95% Critical Value
200
0
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
Two-Point Azimuths: Random Simulation
(North Domain)
n = 149 cones / Replicate
500
Frequency
0
B.
0
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
60
90
60
90
Two-Point Azimuths: Random Simulation
(South Domain)
600
n = 149 / replicate
Replicate no. = 300
Line
Segments / Replicate
= 11,026
Replicates
= 300
Frequency
C.
C.
cones
/ Replicate
nn== 147
147
/ replicate
Replicate no. = 300
Replicates
300 = 10,731
Line Segments / =
Replicate
400
200
0
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
Two-Point Azimuths: Newberry Cones
(North Domain)
500
-90
B.
-30
0
30
Two-Point Azimuths: Newberry Cones
(South Domain)
600
n = 149
cones
n = 149
cones
Total
Line
Segments== 11,026
11,026
Line Segments
-60
n = 147
cones
n = 147 cones
Total Line Segments
= 10,731
Line Segments
= 10,731
400
200
0
A.
-90
-60
-30
0
Azimuth
30
60
90
A.
0
-90
-60
-30
0
Azimuth
30
POINT-DENSITY METHOD
(Zhang and Lutz, 1989)
1-km wide filter strips with 50% overlap
Filter strip-sets rotated at 5-degree azimuth increments
Tally total number of cones / strip / azimuth bin
Calculate cone density per unit area
Compare actual densities to random (replicates = 50)
Normalize Cone Densities: D = (d – M) / S
D = normalized cone density
d = actual cone density (no. / sq. km)
M = average density of random points (n = 50 reps)
S = random standard deviation
Significant cone lineaments = >2-3 STDEV above random
Comparison of Fault Trends and
Cinder Cone Lineaments at
Newberry Volcano
Tumalo
Fault
Zone
Cind er cone location
10
Cone lineament determined by
M onte Carlo point-density method
o f Zh ang and Lutz (1989)
20
n = 142
Brothers
Fault
Zone
TFZ
BFZ
n = 87
10
5
20
n = 165
Missing
WRFZ?
Cinder Cone Lineaments
(Critical L-value >2 SD)
Walker Rim
Fault
Zone
10
20
n = 92
0
10 km
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
I. CONE MORPHOLOGY
•




•
Degradation Models Through Time (Dohrenwend and others, 1986)
Diffusive mass wasting processes
Mass transfer: primary cone slope to debris apron
Reduction of cone height and slope
Loss of crater definition
Newberry Results (Taylor and others, 2003)




Group I Cones: Avg. Slope = 19-20o; Avg. Relief = 125 m; Avg. Hc/Wc = 0.19
Group II Cones: Avg. Slope = 11-15o; Avg. Relief = 65 m; Avg. Hc/Wc = 0.14
Group I = “Youthful”; more abundant in northern domain
Group II = “Mature”; common in northern and southern domains

Possible controlling factors include: degradation processes, age
differences, climate, post-eruption cone burial, lava composition, and
episodic (polygenetic) eruption cycles
II. CONE VOLUME RESULTS
•
Newberry cone-volume maxima align NW-SE with the Tumalo fault zone;
implies structure has an important control on eruptive process
III. CONE ALIGNMENT PATTERNS
•
•
•
•
•
Newberry cones align with Brothers and Tumalo fault zones
Poor alignment correlation with Walker Rim fault zone
Other significant cone alignment azimuths: 10-35o, 80o, and 280-295o
Results suggest additional control by unmapped structural conditions
Cone-alignment and volume-distribution studies suggest that the
Tumalo Fault Zone is a dominant structural control on magma
emplacement at Newberry Volcano
IV. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS
•
•
This study provides a preliminary framework to guide future
geomorphic and geochemical analyses of Newberry cinder cones
This study provides a preliminary framework from which to pose
additional questions regarding the complex interaction between stress
regime, volcanism, and faulting in central Oregon
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding Sources:
Western Oregon University Faculty Development Fund
Cascades Volcano Association
WOU Research Assistants and ES407 Senior Seminar Students:
Jeff Budnick, Chandra Drury, Jamie Fisher, Tony Faletti
Denise Giles, Diane Hale, Diane Horvath, Katie Noll, Rachel
Pirot, Summer Runyan, Ryan Adams, Sandy Biester, Jody
Becker, Kelsii Dana, Bill Vreeland, Dan Dzieken,
Rick Fletcher
Extent of Hypothesized Newberry Ice Cap (Donnelly-Nolan and Jensen, 2009)
Cinder Cone Distribution Relative to Hypothesized Extent of Newberry Ice Cap
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # #
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
# # #
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Ice_cap_limits.shp
Ice cap limit
Single_cones_ice_cap.shp
Single cones within ice limit
Composite cones within ice limit
Composite_cone_ice_cap.shp
Single_cones_no_ice.shp
Single cones outside ice limit
Composite cones inside ice limit
Composite_cones_no_ice.shp
Caldera_lakes.shp
Caldera lakes
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # # ##
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
## #
#
#
##
## #
## #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
##
#
##
# #
#
#
#
#
#
# ##
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
N
#
#
#
4
0
4
8 Kilometers
Cone Morphology Comparison Relative to Hypothesized Extent of Newberry Ice Cap
Avg. Cone Long Axis/Short Axis Ratio
1.30
1.35
No Significant Difference