Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /geomorph

Volcanic geomorphological classification of the cinder cones of Tenerife(Canary Islands, Spain)

J. Dóniz-Páez ⁎Department of Geography and History, University of La Laguna, Campus de Guajara s/n, 38071, La Laguna, Tenerife, SpainEscuela Universitaria de Turismo Iriarte, adscrita a La Universidad de La Laguna, 38400, Puerto de La Cruz, Tenerife, SpainInstituto Volcanológico de Canarias (INVOLCAN), Puerto de La Cruz, Tenerife, Spain

⁎ Tel.: +34 922316502x6145.E-mail address: jdoniz@ull.es.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.10.0040169-555X/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 April 2014Received in revised form 29 September 2014Accepted 5 October 2014Available online 12 October 2014

Keywords:Volcanic geomorphologyMorphological parametersMorphological classificationCinder or scoria conesTenerifeSpain

This paper proposes amethod to establish amorphological classification of Tenerife's cinder cones on the basis ofa dual analysis of qualitative (existence, geometry and disposition of craters) and quantitativemorphometric pa-rameters (major and minor diameters and cone elongation, major and minor diameters and crater elongation).The result obtained is a morphological classification of the cinder cones of Tenerife, which can be sub-dividedinto four types: ring-shaped-cones, horseshoe-shaped-volcanoes,multiple volcanoes and volcanoeswithout cra-ter. In Tenerife there is a clear dominance of horseshoe-shaped volcanoes (69.0%) over ring-shaped cones(13.1%), volcanoes without craters (11.4%) and multiple volcanoes (6.4%). The classification presented in thispaper is characterized by its simplicity which makes it possible to include all morphological types of volcanoesfound in Tenerife. This fact also renders our classification a useful tool to apply in other, both insular and conti-nental volcanic areas to eventually analyze and systematize the study of eruptive edifices with similar traits.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The general characteristics of monogenetic volcanoes have been an-alyzed in several works (Wood, 1980a,b; Cas and Wright, 1987; Ollier,1988; Romero, 1991, 1992; Francis, 1993; Poblete, 1995; Cárdenas,1996; Connor and Conway, 2000; Vespermann and Schminke, 2000;Dóniz-Páez, 2004; Favalli et al., 2009; Bemis et al., 2011; Fornaciaiet al., 2012; Grosse et al., 2012; Kereszturi and Németh, 2012;Becerra-Ramirez, 2013). The studies about the morphology of monoge-netic volcanoes have undergone considerable improvement in recentdecades (Di Traglia et al., 2014). Monogenetic volcanoes are the mostcommon volcanoes on Earth (Wood, 1980a) and appear shaping volca-nic fields in different tectonic contexts. These volcanic fields comprisesmall volcanoes such as cinder or scoria cones, maars, tuff cones, tuffrings, small shield volcanoes and lava domes (Connor and Conway,2000). These volcanic structures are dominantly mafic in compositionand characterized by the short duration of their eruptions, from severaldays to a few years (Németh, 2010).Monogenticmafic volcanoes usual-ly appear on the flanks of composite-stratovolcanoes, like in Etna orTeide, large shield volcanoes, such as Kilauea, or in volcanic rifts, as inCumbre Vieja volcano (Connor and Conway, 2000; Geyer and Martí,2010). Conventionally, the authors have documented five types ofmonogenetic volcanoes (lava spatter cones, scoria or cinder cones,

maar or maar-diatremes, tuff rings and tuff cones). This classificationis primarily based on themorphological aspects and dominant eruptionstyles of these volcanoes (Tort and Finizola, 2005; Gomez, 2012;Kereszturi and Németh, 2012; Di Traglia et al., 2014).

Rittmann (1963) classifies monogenetic volcanoes such as cindercones that release a little amount of basaltic products (lapilli, scoria,bombs, spatter, lavas) (b1 km3) at high temperature (1000–1200 °C).The resulting volcanic forms are morphologically homogeneous volca-noes (Rittmann, 1963; Macdonald, 1972), which are small, and produceequally small in volume eruptive products, and therefore, they are con-sidered to be simple. Current research shows that they can be fairly big,and/or have erupted through a longer time span, and/or followed someirregular eruptive path (Kereszturi and Németh, 2012; Kereszturi et al.,2013b). These various phenomena resulted and are reflected in theirmorphology, this then being far more complex than just a simple conewith a crater. The shapes of monogenetic volcanoes are the result ofcomplex evolutions (eruptive activity, structural setting and erosionprocesses) (Di Traglia et al., 2014). In this sense Romero (1991),Dóniz-Páez (2004) and Becerra-Ramirez (2013) show the geomorpho-logical and structural complexity of cinder or scoria cones.

The cinder cones are formed by near-vent accumulation of tephrathat is characterized by various degrees of agglutination or welding(Vespermann and Schminke, 2000; Valentine et al., 2007). The cinder,spatter and lava cones are normally associated with mafic magma, butin Tenerife these volcanoes include olivine basalts, olivine-pyroxenicbasalts and alkaline basaltswith olivine (Barrera et al., 1988). The cinder

433J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

cones generally constitute elongated edifices, evidenced by both thenumber of craters along a fracture and the elongation (Cas andWright, 1987; Francis, 1993; Romero et al., 2000; Dóniz-Páez et al.,2008). Cone elongation represents in turn the distortion factors of themorphology of the volcano, and the former is obtained by dividing thecone major diameter by the cone minor diameter (Romero et al.,2000; Dóniz-Páez et al., 2008). In Tenerife the cones have 1 to 20 cratersand the average elongation index is 1.47with amaximumof 2.03. Thesevolcanoes are constructed from fractures opened in steep slope areas(N10°) (Corazzato and Tibaldi, 2006; Tibaldi and Lagmay, 2006; Favalliet al., 2009; Fornaciai et al., 2012), but in Tenerife the slope where the

Fig. 1. A ring-shaped cinder cone in Lanzarote (Canary) (left

volcanoes are located is not greater than 25° (Dóniz-Páez, 2011). In gen-eral, the morphology of the cinder cones corresponds to a truncatedcone (Macdonald, 1972; Cas and Wright, 1987; Francis, 1993). Never-theless, cinder cones are simple because most of them erupted througha limited period of time (days to years). These volcanoes are associatedwith explosive fragmentation of low viscosity magmas, among otherdistinctive traits.

The cinder cones have been categorized using different morpholog-ical classifications (Thuoret, 1999). Traditionally, these classifications(morphogenetic or morphological) only refer to two main morphologi-cal categories, namely, ring-shaped cones and horseshoe volcanoes

) and horseshoe volcanoes in El Hierro (Canary) (right).

Fig. 2. Simplified geological map of Tenerife (modified from Ancochea et al., 1990).

434 J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

(Macdonald, 1972; Cas and Wright, 1987) (Fig. 1). Therefore, all thosevolcanoes that do not exhibit this morphology correspond to eruptionsin which some kind of disturbances have occurred (dip of eruptiveconduit, fracturing system, distinctive eruptive phases, wind effect,slope, etc.). Nevertheless, it is evident that cinder cones can showmore complex morphologies. In research works dedicated specificallyto the analysis of scoria cones, differences in shape, size and evolutionof the monogenetic mafic volcanism have been made clear (Romero,1991; Dóniz-Páez et al., 2008, 2011, 2012; Kereszturi et al., 2012,2013a,b).

The detailed observation of the geomorphological features of thecinder cones of Tenerife Island reveals the morphological variety ofthese volcanoes; for this reason the volcanoes cannot be classifiedaccording to Rittmann's (1963) proposal, because it only considers themost significant volcanic forms. According to Thuoret (1999), tradition-al classifications of cinder cones were based on the type of activity, themagma and the emitted products. These classifications have beenprogressively improved by bearing in mind a large number of factors.There are geomorphological classifications of the cinder cones depend-ing on genesis (monogenetic), style (Hawaiian, Strombolian, violentStrombolian) and duration of the eruptions (from a few days to a fewyears and, in rare cases, decades), as well as the nature of the resultingmaterials (ash, lapilli, scoria, spatter, lava flows) (Francis, 1993). Otherclassifications refer to spatial organization and fractures (Romero,1991) and tectonic environment (Settle, 1979; Takada, 1994; Corazzatoand Tibaldi, 2006; Tibaldi and Lagmay, 2006; Favalli et al., 2009;Fornaciai et al., 2012). There are classifications referred to the geomor-phologic and morphometric parameters (Bemis, 1995; Dóniz-Páez,2004; Inbar et al., 2011; Grosse et al., 2012) and size (Pike, 1978;Wood, 1980a; Bemis, 1995; Delacour et al., 2007; Dóniz-Páez et al.,2012). There are also classifications of cinder cones that make referenceto the erosion processes (Wood, 1980b; Dohrenwend et al., 1986;Hooper and Sheridan, 1998; Dóniz-Páez et al., 2011; Kereszturi andNémeth, 2012).

The geomorphological classifications of monogenic volcanism areone of the main objectives of the volcanic geomorphology (Porter,1972; Wood, 1980a; Thuoret, 1999; Kereszturi and Németh, 2012;Kervyn et al., 2012). The high number of cinder cones on Tenerife andtheir morphological variety (Dóniz-Páez, 2004) render a classificationof these volcanoes all the more necessary. The aim of this paper is toclassify the cinder cones of Tenerife on both qualitative (shape of cratersand edifices, etc.) and quantitative (morphometry) bases using mor-phological parameters such as major and minor diameters and coneelongation, major and minor diameters and crater elongation. Thesource data used for the spatial localization of cinder cones and themorphometric analysis are the digital topography at scale 1:10,000,geological maps at scale 1:25,000, geomorphological maps and aerialphotographs at scale 1:30,000 and 1:18,000, and, finally field work(Dóniz-Páez, 2004 and Dóniz-Páez et al., 2008). The results enable ex-trapolation of this geomorphological classification of the cinder conesto other, both insular and continental volcanic areas.

2. Geological and geomorphological setting of Tenerife Island

Tenerife is the largest (2034 km2) and the highest (3718 m a.s.l.)(Fig. 15) among the islands of the Canaries and it hosts various volcanicremnants with different ages and geochemistry such as mafic, salic andintermediate volcaniclastics (Ancochea et al., 1990) (Fig. 2). The oldestsubaerial volcanic rocks (Old Basaltic Series) are found in the three cor-ners of the island, namely in the Anaga (NE), Teno (NW) and Roquedel Conde (S) Massifs. Their ages range from 12 Ma for the lower partof the Roque del Conde up to 4.2 Ma for the Anaga Massif (Ancocheaet al., 1990; Thirlwall et al., 2000). These massifs represent the subaerialremains of the main stages of shield volcanism (Thirlwall et al., 2000)and were built by Strombolian and/or Hawaiian-type basaltic eruptionsmainly from fissure vents (Martínez-Pisón and Quirantes, 1981). Theprincipal rocks appearing are ankaramites, basanites and alkali-basalts,although salic materials can also be recognized (Araña, 1995; Martí

Fig. 3. Plans of cinder cones: cone (Eco) and crater (Ecr) elongation.

435J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

andWolff, 2000). These old volcanic massifs are formed by the superpo-sition of lava flows up to 1000 m thick, with interbedded pyroclastic de-posits, all of them intruded by numerous dykes. The steady erosionprocesses that have affected the massifs have determined their contem-porary topography and morphology, presently exhibiting numerous ra-vines, cliffs and beaches.

Around 3 Ma ago the major volcanic activity shifted to the centralpart of the island (e.g. Cañadas Series), althoughminor volcanic activityalso occurred in the Anaga Massif (Las Rosas Volcano) and Teno Massif,e.g. El Palmar, Tierra del Trigo, Taco, Aregume and other volcanoes(Martí et al., 1994). This phase of volcanism bears witness to the forma-tion of more heterogeneous deposits, including mafic and phonoliticmagmas produced by Strombolian, and sub-Plinian types of eruption

Fig. 4. Plans and profiles of different cinder con

(Araña, 1995;Martí andWolff, 2000). The Central Complex has an elon-gated morphology (16 × 9 km with a perimeter of 27 km) and a com-plex structure resulting from the superposition of different volcanicedifices. Most of the eruptions that made room for the Cañadas edificewere explosive, thus producing a large variety of phonolitic pyroclasticdeposits mostly exposed along the southern slopes of Tenerife (Martíet al., 1994; Bryan et al., 1998).

After the construction of the Cañadas edifice, the Las Cañadas Caldera,an elliptical depression, was formed bymultiple processes of vertical col-lapse (Araña, 1971; Martí et al., 1994, 1997; Martí and Gudmundsson,2000) or by giant landslide processes (Watts and Masson, 1995;Ancochea et al., 1999). The post-caldera volcanic activity is concentratedon the northern part of the caldera where the Pico Viejo and Teide

es of Tenerife based on their morphology.

Fig. 5.Morphological classification of cinder cones of Tenerife.

436 J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

stratovolcanoes are situated (Ablay and Martí, 2000). In these stratovol-canoes different materials from distinct eruption dynamics are juxta-posed, imbricated and overlapped, making clear their complexgeological (Ablay and Martí, 2000) and geomorphological evolution(Martínez-Pisón and Quirantes, 1981). Materials originated from thesestratovolcanoes have filled the caldera depression and mostly coveredthe northern slopes of the island. Currently volcanic processes continuebeing the factors thatmore aptly describe the topography and the terri-tory of the central Tenerife area. The sector is a very abrupt landscapewith the highest summits on the island, which coalesce with other en-claves of horizontal topography. The most significant topographicalforms are associated with the different eruptions (stratovolcanoes, cal-deras, domos, cinder cones, lava flows, etc.) and torrential erosion pro-cesses, slope dynamics and periglaciation.

Coeval with the construction of the Cañadas edifice, shield basalticvolcanism continued until the present along rift zones oriented NW–

SE and NE–SW, and in a more scattered area on the south (Ancochea

Fig. 6. Spatial distribution of the morpho

et al., 1990; Galindo et al., 2005). This basaltic volcanism is responsiblefor the formation of hundreds of monogenetic volcanoes, grouped intothree main volcanic rifts (Carracedo, 1994; Geyer and Martí, 2010).The dominance of volcanic processes on the erosive ones determinesthe existence of volcanoes with soaring topographies that descendfrom the highest altitude to sea level, identifying in the process slopesthat approach N50°. Occasionally, in these slopes deep ravines appear.The formof thesemorphostructures is defined by the existence of a dor-sal axis concentratingmost of the cinder cones, these being surroundedleft and right by an area edified on lavaflow emissions (NW–SE andNE–SW rift zones). Thus, for instance, on the NE–SW rift, 76 out of the 123volcanoes are on the axis (Dóniz-Páez, 2009a). In turn, in the south ofTenerife the local morphology is defined by an extensive volcanic fieldthat extends NE–SW and NW–SE (Kröchert and Buchner, 2009; Geyerand Martí, 2010; Kereszturi et al., 2013a).

3. Methodology: morphometric analysis of Tenerife cinder cones

Themethodology used in this paper relies ondifferent qualitative andquantitative morphological parameters referred to the cinder cones. Themorphological parameters were calculated at 1:10,000 cartography.First, the qualitative morphological parameters refer to the number, ge-ometry and disposition of craters. The existence or not of craters in a vol-canic conewas obtained from topographicmaps (1:10,000), aerial photoanalysis and field work. The (non) existence of craters allows for a firstidentification between cinder cones with orwithout craters. The geome-try–morphology of craters permits us to distinguish between ring-shaped cones (close craters) andhorseshoe-shaped volcanoes (open cra-ters). The open crater shows a lack of closure in its cone, either as an ef-fect of thewindor because the lavas break a part of the cone andopen itscrater down to theflowing slope (Dóniz-Páez, 2011). The combination ofopen and closed craters, in turn, makes room for a difference between

logy of the cinder cones of Tenerife.

Fig. 7. LiDAR, slope and topography maps (from Visor GrafCan) show the relation between cinder cones with the slope topography. M. Güímar and M. Mostaza are, respectively, ring-shaped and horseshoe volcanoes emplaced on slope b10°. Sietecañadas and Centinela are, respectively, ring- and horseshoe-shaped volcanoes on slopes N10°.

437J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

multiple scoria cones and other types of cinder cones. Second, the sevenmost effective quantitative parameters for defining the shape of the vol-canic edifice have been used in this study (cone major and minor diam-eters, cone elongation, number of craters, crater major and minordiameter and crater elongation) (Dóniz-Páez, 2004). From these sevenmorphological parameters, some of them are used only for the volcanicedifice (cone major and minor diameters and cone elongation), andothers refer to the crater of the cone (crater major diameter, craterminor diameter and crater elongation). Delimitation of the base of thecones has been calculated by manual processes. We are aware that themanual delimitation can be influenced by certain subjectivity, for thisreason we used a 1:10,000 cartography in order to minimize errors. DiTraglia et al. (2014) indicated that the automatic boundary delimitationof volcanic terrains can be affected by irregular topography, and theypropose a semi-automatic delimitation of cinder cone boundariesbased on the integration of the DEM-derived slope and curvature maps(Di Traglia et al., 2014) as an effective method for obtaining volcano de-limitation. This method was already used by Grosse et al. (2009) for thestratovolcanoes.

The morphological parameters used in this study include thefollowing:

(1) Number of craters (Ncr). Only those craters with a topographicalreflection 1:10,000 are counted. Aerial photography and fieldwork have also been used for a correct delimitation of craters. Itis appropriate to emphasize, as well, that we are dealing onlywith craters and a crater may contain various vents.

(2) Cone major diameter (Wbco), cone minor diameter (wsco). Inorder to obtain these parameters the volcano is compared to acircumference or an ellipse where the major axis corresponds

to the cone major diameter, and the minor axis corresponds tothe cone minor diameter (Porter, 1972; Wood, 1980a).

(3) Crater major diameter (Wbcr) and crater minor diameter(wscr). Like in cone diameters, craters resemble geometric fig-ures and, as a function of theirs, crater major and minor diam-eters are established (Porter, 1972; Settle, 1979; Wood,1980a).

(4) Cone elongation (Eco) and crater elongation (Ecr). Cone andcrater elongation are, respectively, the distortion factor of themorphology of the volcano and the crater. These parameters rep-resent the deviation from the theoretical circumference. The for-mer is obtained by dividing the conemajor diameter by the coneminor diameter, and the latter by dividing the crater major di-ameter by the crater minor diameter (Tibaldi, 1995; Romeroet al., 2000; Dóniz-Páez, 2004; Corazzato and Tibaldi, 2006;Dóniz-Páez et al., 2008; Grosse et al., 2012; Kervyn et al., 2012)(Fig. 3).

In the analysis of quantitative morphometric parameters (Table 1),differences in the morphology of the cinder cones of Tenerife were ob-tained. The main facts are as follows:

(1) the existence of cinder cones with (88.55% of cones) andwithoutcrater (11.45% of volcanoes) (Ncr);

(2) the existence of cinder cones with closed (13.13% of cones), open(69.02% of volcanoes) and openor closed craters (6.40% of cones)(geometry–morphology);

(3) the existence of volcanoes with very elongated plans and craters(Eco=N 1.6 and Eco= 1.6) and volcanoes with circularmorphol-ogies (Eco = ≤1.6 and Eco = ≤1.6) (Fig. 3);

Fig. 8. Ring-shaped cones: La Atalaya cinder cone, a symmetrical ring cone.

Fig. 9. Ring-shaped cones: Sietecañadas cinder cone, an asymmetrical ring-shaped cone.

438 J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

Fig. 10. Typical horseshoe-shaped cones: Montaña Rasca cinder cone.

Fig. 11. Extended vertex (“tuning fork”): Montaña Chío cinder cone.

439J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

Fig. 12. Arched horseshoe cones: Montaña Roja cinder cone.

Fig. 13. El Palmar multiple scoria cones.

440 J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

Fig. 14. Volcano without crater of Montaña Garajao.

Fig. 15. Topographic map of Tenerife and spatial localization of the all cinder cones mentioned in the text.

441J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

Table 1Values of morphometric parameters of Tenerife cinder cones.

Morphometric parameters Average Maximum Minimum Median

(Wbco), Cone major diameter (m) 537.47 1390 50 500(wsco), Cone minor diameter (m) 403.21 1080 40 370(Eco), Cone elongation 1.47 14.89 1 1.247(Ncr), Number of craters 1.39 10 0 1(Wbcr), Crater major diameter (m) 331 930 4 300(wscr), Crater minor diameter (m) 188 680 3 160(Ecr), Crater elongation 2.03 13.5 1 1.618

Table 3Morphometric parameters and morphology of cinder cones.

Morphology of cones N° cones Eco Ecr Ncr

A1 symmetrical 29 1.1 1.2 1A2 asymmetrical 10 1.6 1.8 1.25Total ring-shapes cones 39 1.2 1.4 1.05Typical horseshoe 146 1.2 1.8 1.15Extend horseshoe 18 1.8 3.3 1.22Arched horseshoe 41 1.8 2.2 1.13Total horseshoe-shaped 205 1.4 2 1.2Multiple volcanoes 19 2.6 3.8 2.5Volcanoes without crater 34 1.4 – –

442 J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

(4) the existence of simple (93.60% of cones) and multiple edifices(6.40% of volcanoes) (Ncr, Eco and Ecr).

4. Results

4.1. Spatial and temporal distribution of cinder cones in Tenerife

The mafic volcanism of Tenerife is responsible for the formationof hundreds of monogenetic volcanoes, characterized by effusive-Hawaiian and explosive Strombolian and violent Strombolian activity(Dóniz-Páez, 2009a,b) and minor hydrovolcanic eruptions as maars(Caldera del Rey), tuff rings (Montaña Amarilla and Montaña Pelada)(Carmona et al., 2011) and cinder cones (Montaña Erales)whose tephraanalyses suggest that the eruption style changed progressively from aninitial phreatomagmatic phase, through a transitional stage, to one thatwas entirely Strombolian (Clarke et al., 2009). The materials of theseeruptions covermost of the previous topographic relief and form sever-al volcanic fields: Teno Volcanic Field (TVF), San Lorenzo–Galletas Vol-canic Field (SLGVF), Pedro Gil Volcanic Field (PGVF), Pico Viejo–TeideVolcanic Field (PVTVF) and Bilma Volcanic Field (BVF) (Dóniz-Páez,2004, 2005), grouped in three main volcanic rifts (Geyer and Martí,2010). These volcanic fields have been differentiated according totheir topographic, geological, geomorphological, structural and volcanicevolution (Dóniz-Páez et al., 2008, 2011, 2012). These volcanic fieldshave different number of cones, different density of cones/km2 and adifferent separation index between cones (SIco) (Table 2). The SIco cor-responds to the separation distance between one eruptive edifice andthe next, closest one (in meters), measured from the geometric centerof the cone up to the geometric center of its nearest neighbor (Settle,1979;Wood, 1980b; Dóniz-Páez et al., 2008; Inbar et al., 2011). The geo-metric center is defined by the intersection point between cone majorand minor diameters.

Only 43 volcanoes have been dated in Tenerife, corresponding to14.5% of the whole island. Several methods and techniques have beenused to date these edifices: 14C, K/Ar, paleomagnetism and historicalchronicle, over the latest 500 years, since the time of the conquest ofthe Canary Islands, between 1402 and 1496 (Romero, 1991). The timespan covered by dating of the basaltic monogenetic volcanoes is around791 ka, ranging from 791 ka for Montaña Birmagen, in the NE part ofPGVF, up to 1909 for Chinyero volcano when the last eruption in Tene-rife Island took place in BVF (Soler and Carracedo, 1986; Romero, 1991;Castellano, 1996; Carracedo et al., 2003, 2007). Nevertheless, it is worthnoting that most of the dated volcanoes, 72.1%, correspond to the last

Table 2Physical characteristics of volcanic fields in Tenerife. Note: SIco — mean separationbetween cones, in meters.

Volcanicfield

X Y Numbercones

Densitycones/km2

SIco (m) Orientation

TVF 315.946 3.136.733 12 0.11 1460 NW–SEPGVF 338.996 3.128.558 123 0.24 752 NE–SWBVF 327.664 3.131.126 46 0.24 668 NW–SEPVTVF 354.316 3.134.972 20 0.14 747 NW–SESLGVF 338.280 3.106.846 94 0.11 925 NW–SE and

NE–SW

10 ka, i.e. the Holocene, while only 14.0% from all the eruptive edificeshave ages greater than 100 ka.

The cinder cones of Tenerife are different in age, so it is necessaryto point out that themorphometric indexes obtained refer to presentmeasurements of the cinder cones. In addition, the scarcity of datedscoria cones on the Island and the contrasting morphoclimatic envi-ronments (arid, semiarid, humid, high mountain, etc.) where volca-noes are located make it impossible to establish reliable erosionrates valid for the whole Tenerife and, therefore to reconstruct theoriginal measurements of these volcanoes (Dóniz-Páez andRomero, 2007; Dóniz-Páez et al., 2011). The correlation of heightand diameter of the cone (Hco/(Wbco/wsco)) is greater when the cin-der cones are more recent, but the correlations of diameter of craterand the cones ((Wbco/wsco)/(Wbcr/wscr)) index evolve inversely(Wood, 1980b). The morphometric study of Tenerife's dated volcanoesby age intervals (Pleistocene and Holocene) reveals that both correla-tions do not evolve according toWood's postulation, but instead evolveinversely. These aspects preclude the establishment of erosion rates forTenerife cinder cones and reconstruction of their morphology, as otherauthors have already done (Kereszturi and Németh, 2012).

4.2. Geomorphological classification of cinder cones in Tenerife

The analysis of thenumber, geometry and disposition of craters (Ncr)and the study of the morphometric parameters (Wbco, wsco, Eco, Wbcr,wscr and Ecr) permit grouping of the cinder cones into four morpholog-ical types (Table 3 and Fig. 4):

(A) Ring-shaped cones: These cinder cones are characterized by cir-cular or slightly elliptical shape (Eco = 1–1.6 and Ecr = ≤1.9)and closed craters. This category can be subdivided into twosubgroups:– (A1) Symmetrical ring cones: the plan of the cone (Eco =

≤1.2) and crater are of circular or sub-circular shape(Ecr = ≤1.2) and they have one crater (Ncr = 1).

– (A2) Asymmetrical ring cones: the plan of the volcano and thecrater are slightly elongated in one direction (Eco =≤1.8and Ecr =≤1.8). Asymmetry refers only to these two pa-rameters, without taking into account the existence ofsymmetrical or asymmetrical cross-sections. These volca-noes have one or more crater (Ncr = 1–≥1).

(B) Horseshoe-shaped volcanoes: These show open craters. There isawidemorphological variety of horseshoe cones due to thenum-ber of intervening factors in the shape of this type of edifice.Mor-phological classifications are based on the symmetry of the planof the edifice, the form configuration of craters and slopes andthe size and shape of the opening breaking their flanks. Allthese aspects can be grouped in the crater opening and the mor-phology of the craters (Ecr); three types can be distinguished:– (B3) Typical horseshoe-shaped cones: They are characterized

by the circular or subcircular shaped plans (Eco =≤1.2), the presence of open central craters (Ncr = ≥1)

443J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

in one direction (Ecr = 1–≤1.9), and usually a narrowway-out pass.

– (B4) Extended vertex (“tuning fork”) horseshoe cones: Theseare characterized by elliptical plans (Eco = ≥1.6) devel-oped due to several (Ncr = ≥1) elongated craters(Ecr = ≥2) in favor of pre-eruptive slope or as a conse-quence of the eruptive activity along the fissure.

– (B5) Slightly extended vertex horseshoe cones or arched edi-fices: These are volcanoes with elliptical plans (Eco =≥1.6), formed around one or several open craters(Ncr = ≥1) with elliptical elongated forms (Ecr = ≥2).These cones lack a whole flank that corresponds to half,or less than approximately half, a truncated-cone edifice.

(C) Multiple volcanoes: These have irregular plans (Eco = ≥2 andEcr = ≥3) as a result of complex eruption histories evolvingboth eruptive and effusive processes mostly along a fissure.This causes the formation of complex monogenetic volcanoesas well leading to coalescent edifices. This type of volcano maypresent closed and open craters or even different craters in thesame cinder cone (Ncr = N1). Therefore, crater morphology isnot a determining characteristic, but the several craters andevery one may have similarly contributed to the construction ofthe volcanic edifice. They are the most complex cinder conesfrom a morphological viewpoint.

(D) Volcanoes without crater: Mountains with a cone truncatedshape and plans with a tendency to a perfectly circular shape(Eco = ≤1.2); they lack craters with neither cartographic(1:10,000) nor morphological expression. These landforms area consequence of erosion processes, and correspond to the oldestvolcanoes (Gangarro and Marzagan without volcanoes), and theaccumulation of pyroclastic material (Garañana and Arroyo cin-der cones) (Dóniz-Páez, 2004).

The application of this morphological classification to the total 297cinder cones located on Tenerife shows an overwhelming number ofhorseshoe-shape volcanoes (N= 205), against a relatively low numberof other types including ring-shaped cones (N = 39), multiple volca-noes (N = 19) as well as volcanoes without crater (N = 34) (Figs. 5and 6).

These data highlight that, in Tenerife, the two morphological typestraditionally defined (horseshoe-shaped volcanoes, 69%, and ring-shaped cones, 13%) constitutemore than 82%of the volcanoes. Althoughmost of the monogenetic volcanoes in Tenerife formed upon fissureeruptions along the rift zones, the eruptive activity is not continuousalong the fissure; that is why individual volcanoes with different mor-phologies are edified. An example in place is the eruption of Laki,Iceland between 1783 and 1785 (Thordarson and Self, 1993), orTimanfaya, Lanzarote between 1730 and 1736 (Carracedo et al., 1994).In spite of this, the total number of multiple cones is relatively small,only 19. This is related to differences in the eruptive activity along thefracture, which generates morphologically independent volcanoes thatcannot be considered asmultiple edifices. Thus, Tenerife showsmultipleexamples, e.g. the triple historical eruption Sietefuentes–Fasnia–Arafo,in 1704–1705 which built up three volcanic edifices separated fromone another along a 13-km fracture (Romero, 1991). In Fasnia volcano,along a 1-km fracture various cinder cones were formed with differentmorphologies (ring-shaped cones, horseshoe-shaped volcanoes, multi-ple volcanoes and volcanoes without crater).

The larger percentage of horseshoe-shaped volcanoeswith respect toring type cones can be explained by taking into account the previous sur-face slope and, to a lesser extent, other factors suchas prevailingwind di-rection (Montaña Rasca horseshoe-shaped volcano) or actual winddirection during eruptions (Chinyero horseshoe-shaped volcano), asym-metric conduit geometry (Sietecañadas cinder cone), asymmetric lavaspatter accumulations in the crater rim as a collar that eroded in a differ-ential way (Samara scoria cone) (Macgethin et al., 1974; Dehn, 1995;

Riedel et al., 2003; Kereszturi and Németh, 2012; Rodriguez-Gonzalezet al., 2012). There is a close relation between pre-eruptive topographyand the shape of volcanic constructs for every morphological type de-scribed (Dóniz-Páez, 2001, 2011):

(1) Ring- or circular-type cones are located at a lower altitude thanthe other morphological types and always appear in areas offlat topography. From 39 volcanoes of this type, 94.9% (37cones) are located on gentle slopes (b10°). The two remainingring shaped cones are located in sectors exhibiting topographyN10° which corresponds to two asymmetrical ring cones whosemorphology can be connected to the asymmetric conduit geom-etry (Riedel et al., 2003) (Fig. 7).

(2) Volcanoes without craters are generally located in places withflat topography, but independently of the altitude.

(3) Most of themultiple volcanoes are located in the highest altitudesectors of Tenerife. It is in these placeswhere the highest concen-tration of the island volcanism occurs, and where more recenteruptions (sub-historical and historical) with a distinct fissurecharacter have taken place.

(4) Open horseshoe-shaped volcanoes do not have clear correlationswith topography and altitude, so they are spread all over the is-land. However, a relation between slope and crater openingdoes exist: from 205 horseshoe volcanoes, in 95.1% (195 edifices)slope is the responsible for the opening of the craters (Dóniz-Páez,2001, 2011) and only 4.9% (10 cones) are related to other factors(Fig. 7), such as normal wind action, vent geometry and inclina-tion of eruptive conduit (Dehn, 1995; Kereszturi and Németh,2012; Kereszturi et al., 2012, 2013a,b).

The spatial distribution of volcanic cones, as regards their morpho-logical types, shows the influence of previous topography in the shapeof the cinder cones (Dóniz-Páez, 2011). When topography slopes lessthan 10°, most volcanoes are ring-shaped cones and horseshoe-shaped volcanoes with circular and sub-circular elongations and withone flank more elevated due to the accumulation of pyroclasts, and tothe wind direction during the eruption. On the other hand, if the slopeis greater than 10°, the monogenic volcanoes tend to form open cratersand elongated plans. This fact is in keeping with that stated by Tibaldi(1995), Tibaldi and Lagmay (2006) and Corazzato and Tibaldi (2006),who concluded that for breaking the crater, topography controls the ori-entation of the breach when the regional slope is N10°, but when slopeis b10° the breaching occurs parallel to themagma-feeding fracture thatcontrols it.

4.2.1. The ring-or circular-type cinder conesThemorphological and morphometric analysis of ring-type cones of

Tenerife shows that these edifices correspond to very simple cones,with circular plans and closed craters. The circular character and theclosed shape of the crater are related to several factors: the angle ofthe ballistic trajectories of pyroclastics ejected, scarce pyroclastic dis-persal, geometry of the eruptive conduit, concentration of explosiveeruptive activity at a point along the volcanic fracture, different dynamicbehavior of volcanic vents, succession of explosive and effusive stagesduring an active period, and the topography of the volcanoes emplace-ment area (Dóniz-Páez, 2004; Dóniz-Páez et al., 2008, 2011, 2012;Kereszturi and Németh, 2012).

These are volcanoes with circular morphology, homogeneous slopeflanks and mostly symmetrical cross-sections. Although these edificescan have several craters, their ring-shapedmorphology is directly relat-ed to the concentration of the explosive activity in a specific section ofthe eruptive fissure, bringing into existence a unique crater (A1-sym-metrical ring-shaped) (Fig. 8) or to several coalescent vents of funnelmorphology (A2-asymmetrical ring-shaped) (Fig. 9). These main cra-ters exhibit circular or slightly elliptical plans. Occasionally, closedring-shaped cones can have eruptive fissures located in the externalbase of the volcanic edifice that emits abundant lava flows.

444 J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

4.2.2. The horseshoe-shaped cinder conesApparently, horseshoe-shaped volcanoes show very simple morpho-

logical features similar to the ring-shaped cones. Nevertheless, the mor-phology of this type of volcano is more varied than that of ring-shapedcones. The distinctive feature of this type of volcano is the openmain cra-ter and the absence of part of their flanks, which is associated with thetopographical effect for these 195 volcanoes in slopes N10°, and whoselava flows break one of the volcano flanks. For the remaining 10 volca-noes located in sectors whose slope is b10°, the wind is the factor thatconditions the breach of the crater. They have circular or elongatedplans, as a consequence of their construction from several vents.

The absence of a part of their flanks can be due to either the lack ofconstruction or to their truncation by subsequent emissions of lavaflows. In both cases, the open character of the craters is related to severalfactors, such as wind blowing during the eruption, the inclination of thesubstratum, the alternation of explosive and effusive phases, and the ge-ometry and orientation of feeder dyke (Dóniz-Páez et al., 2008; Bemiset al., 2011; Kereszturi and Németh, 2012; Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al.,2012). According to the morphological variety, three morphologicalsub-types of horseshoe-shaped volcanoes have been established: typical(Fig. 10), tuning-fork horseshoe volcanoes (Fig. 11) and arched cones(Fig. 12). This classification was used to define historical Canarian horse-shoe volcanoes (Romero, 1991, 1992), andwas later appliedmore specif-ically to those of Lanzarote (Romero, 2003), Tenerife (Dóniz-Páez, 2004)andmore recently to those in Calatrava Volcanic Region (Central Iberian)(Becerra-Ramirez, 2013).

Typical horseshoe-shaped volcanoes (146) constitute the 71.2% of thevolcanic cones of this category, followed by the arched volcanoes (20%)and tuning fork edifices (8.8%). It isworthnoting that, infirst place, typicalhorseshoe-shaped volcanoes addup to49.2% of all volcanoes of the island,being the most representative morphology of basaltic monogenic volca-nism of Tenerife, something similar to what happens in other locationslike Lanzarote (Romero, 2003), Calatrava (Becerra-Ramirez), Etna(Corazzato and Tibaldi, 2006). In second place, tuning fork edifices, or ex-tended vertex horseshoe-shaped volcanoes, correspond to the least rep-resentative sub-type (6.1%), as it is also the case in the CalatravaVolcanic Region (Becerra-Ramirez, 2013). Last, arched edifices, with 41samples, constitute the 13.8% of the edifices of the whole island, beingthe second category most representative of Tenerife volcanoes.

4.2.3. Multiple volcanoesMultiple volcanoes are those with more than one single cone (ring-

shaped or open horseshoe-shaped volcanoes) or crater (open or close)

Fig. 16. Different classifications of cinder cone

(Fig. 13). Some 19 edifices (6.4% of Tenerife volcanoes) have been con-structed as a result of the association and juxtaposition of two or morevolcanic cones and of the existence of several craters.

The analysis of the number of craters in every morphological typeshows that only multiple cinder cones have always more than one cra-ter, with variations ranging from a minimum of three craters up to amaximum of ten. This large number of craters indicates that their con-struction is a result of complex processes along an eruptive fissure,which together determines the final irregular flanks, and irregularlyshaped plans and craters. Thus, these volcanoes have much more irreg-ular morphologies than ring-shaped or horseshoe-shaped volcanoes.

The morphological features of multiple volcanoes depend on a com-bination of several factors, such asfissure, dynamic eruption or slope sur-face (Romero, 1991, 1992). Given the fact that the plan of thesevolcanoes directly relies on the fracture system, this factor can be consid-ered as themain cause for the shape of these volcanoes. Themorpholog-ical characterization of multiple volcanoes in Tenerife reveals that thehigher the complexity is, the lower the concentration of volcanic activityalong the fracture, and the higher the difference in altitude of the manycraters appearing on it.

4.2.4. Volcanoes without craterSometimes volcanic cones without a visible crater can also be found.

These edifices are composed by pyroclastic rocks (ash, lapilli, scoria,bombs, etc.). The morphological observations made in the Canarian Ar-chipelago indicate that they do not have visible crater because of manyreasons, such as erosion products covering the craters (Fig. 14) (Criado,1984), or craters covered by eruptive products from other recent volca-noes nearby (Romero, 1991, 1992). Once analyzed, the frequent locali-zation of volcanoes without craters close to more recent eruptiveedifices in Tenerife reveals that some 64.7% (22 volcanoes) show thattheir craters have been filled by volcanic products from close eruptions,while 35.3% (12 volcanoes) lack a proper crater, erased by the erosiveaction. Nonetheless, independently of their origin, these constructionsare characterized by sub-elliptical plans, with an average ellipticalindex of 1.4, and preferred locations on areas of flat topography.

5. Discussion

Taking into account the variety of factors intervening in the finalshape of the volcanic edifices (Riedel et al., 2003; Rodríguez et al.,2010; Bemis et al., 2011; Inbar et al., 2011; Kereszturi and Németh,2012; Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al., 2012), as well the enormous

s (modified after Becerra-Ramirez, 2013).

445J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

difficulties in establishing simple morphological models for all the mor-phological variables present in monogenic volcanoes, it has been decid-ed to use a simple typology that has the traditional classification as astarting point (Fig. 16). This typology is, on the one hand, easy to use,and on the other, representative of themain qualitative and quantitativemorphological features of the monogenic basaltic cones of Tenerife(Dóniz-Páez et al., 2008).

It is evident that the classification proposed here is a simplification ofthemorphological features observed in this type of volcanowith respectto other classifications previously established. It is also evident that thissimplicity is whatmakes it useful to apply to other volcanic regions. Themorphological classification proposed has been carried out attendingnot only to exclusive factors appearing in Tenerife, but to general factorson volcanic processes that are also present in other volcanic regions. Inthis sense, for instance, the morphological classification of Tenerife his-torical volcanoes, based on fissure system and eruptive dynamics(Romero, 1992), is too specific to be applied to the totality of cindercones on the island. Such a limitation made room for the need to pro-pose a morphological classification of cinder cones able to encapsulate(non-) historical volcanoes.

Despite being a simple classification, the method adopted heresummarizes the most significant morphostructural features ofmonogenic basaltic volcanoes located in Tenerife. It is a morpholog-ical classification that permits grouping of all the monogenic basalticvolcanoes of the island. Thus, it constitutes a valid classification thatcan be extrapolated to the analysis and systematization of cinder orscoria cones with similar characteristics situated in volcanic islandsor in continental volcanic fields. Such a method has been applied to111 monogenetic volcanoes in Calatrava volcanic region, a continen-tal field which revealed the following results: 66 volcanoes withoutcrater, 19 horseshoe-shaped ones, 16 ringed-shaped cones, and fi-nally, 10 multiple volcanoes (Becerra-Ramirez, 2013). These datashow that the classification can be applied to other volcanic fields,and that the results are highly valid. In Calatrava volcanic region,60% of cinder cones lack craters, which pinpoints the existence of aless recent volcanism (Cebriá et al., 2011).

We are aware that monogenetic volcanism is present in differenttectonic settings, diverse magma compositions (mafic or salic), and dif-ferent volcanic fields (flank and platforms; island or continental, etc.),but the simplicity of the classification would allow for its likely applica-tion to the majority of cases. Therefore, the main contribution of thispaper is to endow researchers with a simple reference to apply in mor-phological analysis.

6. Conclusions

(1) Amorphological classification ofmonogenic basaltic volcanoes ofTenerife is proposed, based on the dual analysis of qualitative andquantitative parameters of the cones.

(2) Qualitative parameters taken into account in the classificationare: number, geometry-shape and disposition of craters.

(3) Morphometric parameters used in the classification are: conemajor and minor diameter, cone elongation, number of craters,crater major diameter, crater minor diameter and crater elonga-tion.

(4) In volcanic geomorphology, there are three types of classificationsof volcanic landforms: (i) dynamic systematizations, (ii) morpho-logical and (iii) the combination of both. The classification pro-posed here is mainly morphological, although other aspectsrelated to the dynamics and eruptive behavior have been alsoconsidered.

(5) The classification proposed here consists of four large geomor-phological groups: (i) ring-shaped (symmetrical ring-shaped vol-canoes and asymmetrical ring-shaped volcanoes), (ii) horseshoe-shaped cones (typical horseshoe-shaped volcanoes, extendedvertex horseshoe-shaped volcanoes or tuning fork volcanoes,-

and slightly extended vertex horseshoe-shaped volcanoes orarched edifices), (iii)multiple edifices, and (iv) volcanoeswithoutcraters.

(6) The relative importance of eachmorphostructural category in thewhole population of Tenerife volcanoes is different: there is a veryhigh predominance (82.1%) of the two classical morphologies ofthe monogenic basaltic volcanoes, such as open horseshoe-shaped, 69.0%, and ring-shaped, 13.1%, followed by pyroclasticsmountains, 11.5%, and last, the multiple volcanic edifices, 6.4%.

(7) There seems to be a good correlation between topographic fea-tureswhere volcanoes are located, theirmorphometric character-istics, and their resultingmorphology. Ring-shaped volcanoes andpyroclastic mountains, morphologically more homogeneous, aremostly emplaced in areas of gentle slopes (N10°) and small heightdifferences having the lowest morphometric indexes; on theother hand, morphologically more heterogeneous eruptive edi-fices, like openhorseshoe-shaped volcanoes andmultiple edifices,aremostly located in areaswith rough topography and having thehighest morphometric indexes.

(8) In general, and taking into account themorphological complexity,a ranking ofmorphostructural categories can be established, frommore to less complex arrangements as multiple edifices, openhorseshoe-shaped volcanoes, ring-shaped cones and volcanoeswithout craters.

(9) The classification proposed in this paper is simple, easy to use andvalid because it includes the entire population of the 297 mono-genic volcanoes of Tenerife studied. This alsomakes this classifica-tion suitable to be applied to other similar volcanoes withinvolcanic fields worldwide.

Acknowledgements

This paper has been funded by the project VOLTEC-3T, supported byOAPN of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Environ-ment. The English revision was provided by P. Carmona, Departmentof English and German Languages, University of La Laguna (Spain).The author is grateful to K. Németh and an anonymous reviewer for pre-cious suggestions and comments that have contributed to the improve-ment of this article. A. Plater is kindly acknowledged for the editorialhandling of this article.

References

Ablay, G., Martí, J., 2000. Stratigraphy, structure, and volcanic evolution of the Pico Teide–Pico Viejo formation, Tenerife, Canary Islands. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 103,175–208.

Ancochea, E., Fúster, J., Ibarrola, E., Cendreros, A., Coello, J., Hernán, F., Cantagrel, M.,Jamond, C., 1990. Volcanic evolution of the island of Tenerife (Canary Islands) inthe light of new K-Ar data. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 14, 231–249.

Ancochea, E., Huertas, M., Cantagrel, M., Coello, J., Fúster, J., Arnaud, N., Ibarrola, E., 1999.Evolution of the Canadas edifice and its implications for the origin of the Canadas Cal-dera Tenerife, Canary Islands. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 88, 177–199.

Araña, V., 1971. Litología y estructura del Edificio Cañadas, Tenerife. Estud. Geol. 27,95–135.

Araña, V., 1995. Notes on Canarian Volcanism. In: Martí, J., Mitjavila, J. (Eds.), A field guideto the Central Volcanic Complex of Tenerife, Cabildo de Lanzarote, Madrid, pp. 3–17.

Barrera, J.L., Gómez, J.A., Ruiz, M.T., Bellido, F., 1988. Mapa geológico de España, escala 1:25.000 Hoja 1110-IV: Santiago del Teide. IGME, Madrid.

Becerra-Ramirez, R., 2013. Geomorfología y geopatrimonio de los volcanes magmáticosde la Región Volcánica del Campo de Calatrava(PhD Thesis) University of Castilla LaMancha, Spain, p. 818.

Bemis, K., 1995. A morphometric study of volcanoes in Guatemala, Iceland, the SnakeRiver Plain, and the South Pacific(Ph.D. Thesis) RutgersUniversity, NewBrunswickNJ.

Bemis, K., Walker, J., Borgia, A., Turrin, B., Neri, M., Swisher III, C., 2011. The growthand erosion of cinder cones in Guatemala and El Salvador: models and statistics.J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 201 (1–4), 39–52.

Bryan, S., Martí, J., Cas, R., 1998. Stratigraphy of the Bandas del Sur Formation: anextracaldera record of quaternary phonolitic explosive eruptions from the LasCañadas edifice, Tenerife (Canary Islands). Geol. Mag. 135 (5), 605–636.

Cárdenas, E., 1996. Secuencias eruptivas y formas de relieve en los volcanes del sectororiental del Campo de Calatrava (Macizo de Calatrava y flanco suroriental del domode Almagro) Ciudad Real. In: García, J., González, E. (Eds.), Elementos del Medio Nat-ural en la Provincia de Ciudad Real. UCLM, Ciudad Real, pp. 162–200.

446 J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

Carmona, J., Romero, C., Dóniz-Páez, J., García, A., 2011. Characterization and facies analy-sis of the hydrovolcanic deposits of Montaña Pelada tuff ring: Tenerife, CanaryIslands. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 59 (1), 41–50.

Carracedo, J., 1994. The Canary Island: an example of structural control on the growth oflarge oceanic-island volcanoes. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 60, 225–241.

Carracedo, J., Badiola, E., Soler, V., 1994. The 1730–1736 eruption of Lanzarote, CanaryIslands: a long, high-magnitude basaltic fissure eruption. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.35 (3), 195–204.

Carracedo, J., Paterne, M., Guillou, H., Pérez-Torrado, F., Paris, R., Badiola, E., Hansen, A.,2003. Dataciones radiométricas (14C y K/Ar) del Teide y el rift noroeste, Tenerife,Islas Canarias. Estud. Geol. 59, 15–29.

Carracedo, J., Rodríguez-Badiola, E., Guillou, H., Paterne, M., Scaillet, S., Pérez Torrado, F.,Paris, R., Fra-Paleo, U., Hansen, A., 2007. Eruptive and structural history of Teide Vol-cano and rift zones of Tenerife, Canary Islands. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 119 (9),1027–1051.

Cas, R., Wright, J., 1987. Volcanic Successions: Modern and Ancient. Allen y Unwin,London, p. 518.

Castellano, A., 1996. Cartografía Geomorfológica del Valle de Güimar(Ph.D. Thesis)Universidad de La Laguna, Spain.

Cebriá, J.M., Martín-Escorza, C., López-Ruiz, J., Morán-Zenteno, D.J., Martiny, B.M., 2011.Numerical recognition of alignments in monogenetic volcanic areas: examples fromthe Michoacán–Guanajuato Volcanic Field in Mexico and Calatrava in Spain. J.Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 201, 73–82.

Clarke, H., Troll, V., Carracedo, J., 2009. Phreatomagmatic to Strombolian eruptive activityof basaltic cinder cones: Montaña Los Erales, Tenerife, Canary Islands. J. Volcanol.Geotherm. Res. 10 (2–4), 225–245.

Connor, C., Conway, F., 2000. Basaltic volcanic field. In: Sigurdsson, H. (Ed.), Encyclopediaof Volcanoes. Academic Press, USA, pp. 331–343.

Corazzato, C., Tibaldi, A., 2006. Fracture control on type, morphology and distribution ofparasitic volcanic cones: an example from Mt. Etna, Italy. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.Res. 158, 177–194.

Criado, C., 1984. El relieve erosivo. Las formas demodelado. Geografía de Canarias. S/C Te-nerife, Interinsular Canaria, pp. 105–142.

Dehn, J., 1995. Model of cinder cone formation, (Summary of Master's degree).Delacour, A., Gerbe, M., Thouret, J., Wörner, G., Paquereau-Lepti, P., 2007. Magma evolu-

tion of Quaternary minor volcanic centres in southern Peru, Central Andes. Bull.Volcanol. 69, 581–608.

Di Traglia, F., Morelli, S., Casagli, N., Garduño-Monroy, V., 2014. Semi-automatic delimita-tion of volcanic edifice boundaries: validation and application to the cinder cones ofthe Tancitaro–Nueva Italia region (Michoacán–Guanajuato Volcanic Field, Mexico).Geomorphology 219, 152–160.

Dohrenwend, J., Wells, S., Turrin, B., 1986. Degradation of Quaternary cinder cones in theCima volcanic field, Mojave Desert, California. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 97, 421–427.

Dóniz-Páez, J., 2001. La influencia de la topografía en las características morfológicas ymorfométricas de los volcanes basálticos monogénicos de Tenerife (Islas Canarias).Cuatern. Geomorfol. 15 (3–4), 125–129.

Dóniz-Páez, J., 2004. Caracterización geomorfológica del volcanismo basálticomonogénico de la isla de Tenerife(Ph.D. Thesis) University of La Laguna, Spain, p. 396.

Dóniz-Páez, J., 2005. Los campos volcánicos basálticos monogénicos de la isla de Tenerife(Canarias, España). Estud. Geogr. 66 (259), 461–480.

Dóniz-Páez, J., 2009a. Morphometric analysis of cinder cones on Tenerife (Canary Islands,Spain): results and applications. In: Romero Díaz, A., Belmonte, F., Alonso, F., López-Bermúdez, F. (Eds.), Advances in Studies on Desertification, pp. 235–238 (Editum,Murcia).

Dóniz-Páez, J., 2009b. Volcanes basálticos monogénicos de Tenerife. Los Realejos, Excmo,Ayuntamiento de Los Realejos, p. 219.

Dóniz-Páez, J., 2011. Relaciones entre topografía y morfología en volcanes basálticosmonogénicos de Tenerife (Islas Canarias, España). Estud. Geogr. LXXII (270), 59–75.

Dóniz-Páez, J., Romero, C., 2007. Gully erosion on cinder cones of Tenerife (Canary Islands,Spain). In: Casalí, J., Giménez, R. (Eds.), Progress in Gully Erosion Research.Universidad Pública de Navarra, Navarra, pp. 4–41.

Dóniz-Páez, J., Romero, C., Coello, E., Guillén, C., Sánchez, N., García-Cacho, L., García,A., 2008. Morphological and statistical characterisation of recent mafic volcanismon Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 173 (3–4),185–195.

Dóniz-Páez, J., Romero, C., Carmona, J., García, A., 2011. Erosion of cinder cones in Tenerifeby gully formation, Canary Islands, Spain. Phys. Geogr. 32 (2), 139–160.

Dóniz-Páez, J., Romero, C., Sánchez, N., 2012. Quantitative size classification of scoriacones: the case of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). Phys. Geogr. 33 (6), 514–535.

Favalli, M., Karatson, D., Mazzarini, F., Pareschi, M.T., Boschi, E., 2009. Morphometry ofscoria cones located on a volcano flank: a case study from Mt. Etna (Italy) based onhigh-resolution LiDAR data. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 183, 320–330.

Fornaciai, A., Favalli, M., Karátson, D., Tarquini, S., Boschi, E., 2012. Morphometry of scoriacones, and their relation to geodynamic setting: a DEM-based analysis. Geomorphol-ogy 217–218, 56–72.

Francis, P., 1993. Volcanoes, a Planetary Perspective. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 443.Galindo, I., Soriano, C., Martí, J., Pérez, N., 2005. Graben structure in the Las Cañadas edifice

(Tenerife, Canary Islands): implications for active degassing and insights on thecaldera formation. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 144, 73–87.

Geyer, A., Martí, J., 2010. The distribution of basaltic volcanism on Tenerife, CanaryIslands: implications on the origin and dynamics of the rift systems. Tectonophysics483 (3–4), 310–326.

Gomez, C., 2012. Multi-scale topographic analysis of Merbabu and Merapi volcanoesusing wavelet decomposition. Environ. Earth Sci. 67 (5), 1423–1430.

Grosse, P., De Vries, B.V.W., Petrinovic, I.A., Euillades, P.A., Alvarado, G.E., 2009. Morphom-etry and evolution of arc volcanoes. Geology 37, 651–654.

Grosse, P.,Wyk, Van, de Vries, B., Euillades, P.A., Kervyn, M., Petrinovic, I., 2012. Systematicmorphometric characterization of volcanic edifices using digital elevation models.Geomorphology 136, 114–131.

Hooper, D., Sheridan, M., 1998. Computer-simulation models of scoria cone degradation.J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 83, 241–267.

Inbar, M., Gilichinsky, M., Melekestsev, I., Melnikov, D., Zaretskaya, N., 2011. Morphomet-ric and morphological development of Holocene cinder cones: a field and remotesensing study in the Tolbachik volcanic field, Kamchatka. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.Res. 201 (1–4), 301–331.

Kereszturi, G., Németh, K., 2012. Monogenetic basaltic volcanoes: genetic classification,growth, geomorphology and degradation. In: Németh, K. (Ed.), Updates in Volcanol-ogy New Advances in Understanding Volcanic Systems, pp. 3–88 InTech.

Kereszturi, G., Jordan, G., Németh, K., Dóniz-Páez, J., 2012. Syn-eruptive morphometricvariability of monogenetic scoria cones. Bull. Volcanol. 74 (9), 2171–2185.

Kereszturi, G., Geyer, A., Martí, J., Németh, K., Dóniz-Páez, J., 2013a. Evaluation ofmorphometry-based dating of monogenetic volcanoes-a case study from Bandasdel Sur, Tenerife (Canary Islands). Bull. Volcanol. 75 (1), 1–19.

Kereszturi, G., Németh, K., Cronin, S., Agustin-Flores, J., Smith, I., Lindsay, J., 2013b. Amodel for calculating eruptive volumes for monogenetic volcanoes-implication forthe Quaternary Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.266, 16–33.

Kervyn, M., Ernst, G.G.J., Carracedo, J., Jacobs, P., 2012. Geomorphometric variability of“monogenetic” volcanic cones: evidence fromMauna Kea, Lanzarote and experimen-tal cones. Geomorphology 136 (1), 59–75.

Kröchert, J., Buchner, E., 2009. Age distribution of cinder cones within the Bandas del SurFormation, southern Tenerife, Canary Islands. Geol. Mag. 146 (2), 161–172.

Macdonald, G., 1972. Volcanoes. Prentice-Hall, USA, p. 510.Macgethin, T., Settle, M., Chouet, B., 1974. Cinder cone growth modeled after northeast

crater, Mount Etna, Sicily. J. Geophys. Res. 79 (23), 3257–3272.Martí, J., Gudmundsson, A., 2000. The Las Cañadas caldera (Tenerife, Canary Islands): an

overlapping collapse caldera generated by magma-chamber migration. J. Volcanol.Geotherm. Res. 103, 161–173.

Martí, J., Wolff, J., 2000. Introduction: the geology and geophysics of Tenerife. J. Volcanol.Geotherm. Res. 103, vii–x.

Martí, J., Mitjavila, J., Araña, V., 1994. Stratigraphy, structure and geochronology of the LasCañadas Caldera (Tenerife, Canary Islands). Geol. Mag. 131, 715–727.

Martí, J., Hurlimann, M., Ablay, G., Gudmundsson, A., 1997. Vertical and lateral col-lapses on Tenerife (Canary Islands) and other volcanic ocean islands. Geology25, 879–882.

Martínez-Pisón, E., Quirantes, F., 1981. El Teide. Estudio Geográfico. Editorial InterinsularCanaria, S/C de Tenerife, p. 190.

Németh, K., 2010. Monogenetic volcanic fields: origin, sedimentary record, and relation-ship with polygenetic volcanism. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 470, 43–66.

Ollier, C., 1988. Volcanoes. Blackwell, Oxford, p. 228.Pike, R., 1978. Volcanoes on the inner planets: some preliminary comparisons of gross to-

pography. Proceedings, 9th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, pp. 3239–3270.Poblete, M., 1995. El relieve volcánico del Campo de Calatrava (Ciudad Real). Universidad

de Oviedo, Oviedo, p. 467.Porter, S.C., 1972. Distribution, morphology and size frequency of cinder cones on Mauna

Kea volcano, Hawaii. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 83, 3607–3612.Riedel, C., Ernst, G.G.J., Riley, M., 2003. Controls on the growth and geometry of pyroclastic

constructs. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 127 (1–2), 121–152.Rittmann, A., 1963. Les Volcans et Leur Activité. Masson, Paris, p. 460.Rodríguez, S.R., Morales-Barrera, W., Layer, P., González-Mercado, E., 2010. A quaternary

monogenetic volcanic field in the Xalapa region, eastern Trans-Mexican volcanic belt:geology, distribution and morphology of the volcanic vents. J. Volcanol. Geotherm.Res. 197 (1–4), 149–166.

Rodriguez-Gonzalez, A., Fernandez-Turiel, J., Pérez-Torrado, F., Paris, R., Gimeno, D.,Carracedo, J., Aulinas, J., 2012. Factors controlling the morphology of monogenetic ba-saltic volcanoes: the Holocene volcanism of Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, Spain).Geomorphology 136, 31–44.

Romero, C., 1991. Las manifestaciones volcánicas históricas del Archipiélago Canario.Consejería de Política Territorial Gobierno Autónomo de Canarias, Santa Cruz de Te-nerife, p. 1463.

Romero, C., 2003. El Relieve de Lanzarote. Cabildo de Lanzarote, Tenerife, p. 242.Romero, C., 1992. Estudio Geomorfológico de los Volcanes Históricos de Tenerife. ACT, S/C

de Tenerife, p. 265.Romero, C., García-Cacho, L., Araña, V., Yanes, A., Felpeto, A., 2000. Submarine volcanism

surrounding Tenerife, Canary Islands: implications for tectonic controls, and oceanicshield forming processes. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 103, 105–119.

Settle, M., 1979. The structure and emplacement of cinder cone fields. Am. J. Sci. 279,1089–1107.

Soler, V., Carracedo, J., 1986. Aplicación de técnicas paleomagnéticas de corto períodoa la datación del volcanismo subhistórico de la Isla de Tenerife. Geogaceta 1,33–35.

Takada, A., 1994. The influence of regional stress and magmatic input on styles of mono-genetic and polygenetic volcanism. J. Geophys. Res. 99 (B7), 13563–13573.

Thirlwall, M., Singer, B., Marrier, G., 2000. 39Ar–40Ar ages and geochemistry of the basal-tic shield stage of Tenerife (Canary Islands). J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 103, 247–297.

Thordarson, T., Self, S., 1993. The Laki (Skaftar Fires) and Grimsvotn eruptions in1783–1785. Bull. Volcanol. 55, 233–263.

Thuoret, J.-C., 1999. Volcanic geomorphology an overview. Earth-Sci. Rev. 47, 95–131.Tibaldi, A., 1995. Morphology of pyroclastic cones and tectonics. J. Geophys. Res. 100

(B12), 24521–24535.Tibaldi, A., Lagmay, A., 2006. Interaction between volcanoes and their basements. J. Volcanol.

Geotherm. Res. 158, 1–5.

447J. Dóniz-Páez / Geomorphology 228 (2015) 432–447

Tort, A., Finizola, A., 2005. The buried calderaMisti volcano, Peru, revealed by combining aself-potential survey with elliptic Fourier function analysis of topography. J. Volcanol.Geotherm. Res. 141 (3–4), 283–297.

Valentine, G., Krier, D., Perry, F., Heinken, G., 2007. Eruptive and geomorphic processes atthe Lathrop Wells scoria cone volcano. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 161, 57–80.

Vespermann, D., Schminke, H., 2000. Scoria cones and tuff rings. In: Sigurdsson, H. (Ed.),Encyclopedia of Volcanoes. Academic Press, USA, pp. 331–343.

Watts, A.B., Masson, D.G., 1995. A giant landslide on the north flank of Tenerife, CanaryIslands. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 24487–24498.

Wood, C., 1980a. Morphometric evolution of cinder cones. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 7,387–413.

Wood, C., 1980b. Morphometric analysis of cinder cone degradation. J. Volcanol.Geotherm. Res. 8, 137–160.