Violent strombolian and subplinian eruptions at Vesuvius during post-1631 activity

Abstract

On the basis of historical chronicles and field investigations the tephrostratigraphic sequence of post-1631 activity of Vesuvius is reconstructed. It has been established that, during this period, in addition to numerous totally effusive eruptions and/or normal strombolian activity, 16 explosive events produced well-traceable tephra deposits in the area outside the Mount Somma caldera. Ages of tephra beds were established on the basis of stratigraphic relationships with historical lava flows and comparison with chroniclers information. The dispersal and lithological characteristics of tephra deposits combined with description of explosive activity lead to the identification of three styles: (a) periods of violent strombolian activity; (b) violent strombolian eruptions; and (c) subplinian eruptions. Violent strombolian eruptions and periods of discrete activity are characterized by the formation of lapilli falls from eruptive columns only some kilometers high. Subplinian eruptions are defined on the basis of their lapilli fall volumes which is of the order of 107 m3, on eruptive column heights of approximately 10 km, bt higher than 1.5, and mass discharged rate values not lower than 106 kg/s. During the first century of activity after the 1631 eruption, two periods of violent strombolian activity occurred at Vesuvius (1682–1707 and 1707–1719) preceded, and followed, by a series of violent strombolian eruptions (1660, 1682, 1707, 1723, 1730, 1790, 1872). Between 1730 and 1779 a relevant change in the eruptive style of Vesuvius occurred by an increase in the explosivity of the eruptions. During the past two centuries of activity, only a few eruptions reached subplinian magnitude and only five eruptions had a phreatomagmatic phase (1779, 1794, 1822, 1906, 1944). Therefore, the previously accepted model of cyclic activity, in which each cycle is closed by an important explosive eruption with phreatomagmatic characteristics, is unfounded. The tephrostratigraphy of the 1906 eruption proposed in this work differs substantially from some previous reconstructions, on which the basis for the modeling of Vesuvius’ behavior in this time span was formed.