No abstract

In November 2019, the fourth Volcano Observatory Best Practices workshop was held in Mexico City as a series of talks, discussions, and panels. Volcanologists from around the world offered suggestions for ways to optimize volcano-observatory crisis operations. By crisis, we mean unrest that may or may not lead to eruption, the eruption itself, or its aftermath, all of which require analysis and communications by the observatory. During a crisis, the priority of the observatory should be to acquire, process, analyze, and interpret data in a timely manner. A primary goal is to communicate effectively with the authorities in charge of civil protection. Crisis operations should rely upon exhaustive planning in the years prior to any actual unrest or eruptions. Ideally, nearly everything that observatories do during a crisis should be envisioned, prepared, and practiced prior to the actual event. Pre-existing agreements and exercises with academic and government collaborators will minimize confusion about roles and responsibilities. In the situation where planning is unfinished, observatories should prioritize close ties and communications with the land and civil-defense authorities near the most threatening volcanoes.To a large extent, volcanic crises become social crises, and any volcano observatory should have a communication strategy, a lead communicator, regular status updates, and a network of colleagues outside the observatory who can provide similar messaging to a public that desires consistent and authoritative information. Checklists permit tired observatory staff to fulfill their duties without forgetting key communications, data streams, or protocols that need regular fulfilment (Bretton et al. Volcanic Unrest. Advances in Volcanology, 2018; Newhall et al. Bull Volcanol 64:3–20, 2020). Observatory leaders need to manage staff workload to prevent exhaustion and ensure that expertise is available as needed. Event trees and regular group discussions encourage multi-disciplinary thinking, consideration of disparate viewpoints, and documentation of all group decisions and consensus. Though regulations, roles and responsibilities differ around the world, scientists can justify their actions in the wake of an eruption if they document their work, are thoughtful and conscientious in their deliberations, and carry out protocols and procedures developed prior to volcanic unrest. This paper also contains six case studies of volcanic eruptions or observatory actions that illustrate some of the topics discussed herein. Specifically, we discuss Ambae (Vanuatu) in 2017–2018, Kīlauea (USA) in 2018, Etna (Italy) in 2018, Bárðarbunga (Iceland) in 2014, Cotopaxi (Ecuador) in 2015, and global data sharing to prepare for eruptions at Nyiragongo (Democratic Republic of Congo). A Spanish-language version of this manuscript is provided as Additional file 1.

No abstract

We report a water chemistry data set from 13 rivers of the Virunga Volcanic Province (VVP) (Democratic Republic of Congo), sampled between December 2010 and February 2013. Most parameters showed no pronounced seasonal variation, whereas their spatial variation suggests a strong control by lithology, soil type, slope, and vegetation. High total suspended matter (289-1467 mg L 21 ) was recorded in rivers in the Lake Kivu catchment, indicating high soil erodibility, partly as a consequence of deforestation and farming activities. Dissolved and particulate organic carbon (DOC and POC) were lower in rivers from lava fields, and higher in nonvolcanic subcatchments. Stable carbon isotope signatures (d 13 C) of POC and DOC mean d 13 C of 222.5& and 223.5&, respectively, are the first data to be reported for the highland of the Congo River basin and showed a much higher C4 contribution than in lowland areas. Rivers of the VVP were net sources of CH 4 to the atmosphere (4-5052 nmol L 21 ). Most rivers show N 2 O concentrations close to equilibrium, but some rivers showed high N 2 O concentrations related to denitrification in groundwaters. d 13 C signatures of dissolved inorganic carbon suggested magmatic CO 2 inputs to aquifers/soil, which could have contributed to increase basalt weathering rates. This magmatic CO 2 -mediated basalt weathering strongly contributed to the high major cation concentrations and total alkalinity. Thus, chemical weathering (39.0-2779.9 t km 22 yr 21 ) and atmospheric CO 2 consumption (0.4-37.0 3 10 6 mol km 22 yr 21 ) rates were higher than previously reported in the literature for basaltic terrains.