↓ Skip to main content

Breathing of the Nevado del Ruiz volcano reservoir, Colombia, inferred from repeated seismic tomography

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Breathing of the Nevado del Ruiz volcano reservoir, Colombia, inferred from repeated seismic tomography
Published in
Scientific Reports, April 2017
DOI 10.1038/srep46094
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos. A. Vargas, Ivan Koulakov, Claude Jaupart, Valery Gladkov, Eliana Gomez, Sami El Khrepy, Nassir Al-Arifi

Abstract

Nevado del Ruiz volcano (NRV), Columbia, is one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world and caused the death of 25,000 people in 1985. Using a new algorithm for repeated tomography, we have found a prominent seismic anomaly with high values of the Vp/Vs ratio at depths of 2-5 km below the surface, which is associated with a shallow magma reservoir. The amplitude and shape of this anomaly changed during the current phase of unrest which began in 2010. We interpret these changes as due to the ascent of gas bubbles through magma and to degassing of the reservoir. In 2011-2014, most of this gas escaped through permeable roof rocks, feeding surface fumarole activity and leading to a gradual decrease of the Vp/Vs ratio in the reservoir. This trend was reversed in 2015-2016 due to replenishment of the reservoir by a new batch of volatile-rich magma likely to sustain further volcanic activity. It is argued that the recurring "breathing" of the shallow reservoir is the main cause of current eruptions at NRV.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 39 53%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 27 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,873,219
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#64,055
of 124,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,606
of 310,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,194
of 4,244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.