Skip to main content

Table 4 Ranges of uncertainties on parameters used for the compilation of isopach and isopleth maps as quantified in the literature

From: A step-by-step evaluation of empirical methods to quantify eruption source parameters from tephra-fall deposits

Isopach

Natural variance

30%

Engwell et al. (2013)

 

Observational error

9%

Engwell et al. (2013)

  

4% (Proximal)

Le Pennec et al. (2012)

  

8% (Medial)

Le Pennec et al. (2012)

  

21% (Distal)

Le Pennec et al. (2012)

 

Data contouring

7%

Engwell et al. (2013)

  

15-40% (Proximal)

Klawonn et al. (2014a, b)

  

<10% (Medial)

Klawonn et al. (2014a, b)

  

20-25% (Distal)

Klawonn et al. (2014a, b)

Isopleth

Clast characterization

10%

Bonadonna et al. (2013)

 

Averaging technique

Up to 100%

Bonadonna et al. (2013)

  1. Natural variance relates to the variability of a deposit around an outcrop as a consequence of both primary (e.g. heterogeneous sedimentation) and secondary (e.g. reworking, erosion) processes. Observational error relates to the variability of thickness measurement by various operators. Data contouring relates to the variability of subjective choices when contouring isopach maps. Clast characterization relates to the variability in the identification of three characteristic length of a clast. Averaging technique relates to the variability of various techniques use to estimate the maximum clast (e.g. the mean value of a variable number of clasts)
Back to article page

Journal of Applied Volcanology

ISSN: 2191-5040

Contact us