Table 3.

Statistical comparison of the morphologies of the cones identified in this study identified as volcanoes

Height (m)Average diameter (km)Axis ratioVolume (km3)Confidence factor
(a)(b)(a)(b)(a)(b)(a)(b)(a)
Average70194021.917.11.192.111441503.75
Standard Deviation64167010.711.60.090.813453710.56
Median47581020.515.31.171.9842313.5
Minimum1001004.52.31.001.130.50.23
Maximum3850303058.563.31.445.23254230865
  • Comparison with: (a) those from a global database of shield volcanoes; and (b) Grosse et al. (2014). The two are similar, apart from the long-short axis ratio; our cones are, on average, more circular than shield volcanoes elsewhere. This could be linked to specific glaciovolcanic eruption mechanisms, but is most likely a data bias due to our detection methods excluding more elliptical edifices.