From "Volcanic Field" to "Volcanic Province": A Continuum of Spatial-Clustered Structures With Geological Significance or a Matter of Academic Snobbism?

"Volcanic Field" is a term commonly used to describe a group of small, monogenetic and dominantly basaltic volcanoes, but that often includes groups of mixed monogenetic and polygenetic edifices. Besides ambiguities on the type of edifice that should be considered to form a VF, there is a lack of agreement concerning the number of volcanoes required to define a VF (ranging from five to over 1000), it is uncertain if the area covered by the volcanoes forming a VF must have a minimum number of volcanoes/unit area, or if the distance between adjacent structures needs to have a specific length. Furthermore, in many cases it is uncertain whether some area is occupied by two adjacent fields or if it is occupied by two subgroups belonging to a unique field. On the other hand, in analogy with the official definition of a geologic province, a "Volcanic Province" can be defined as a large region or area characterized by similar volcanic features, or by a history differing significantly from that of adjacent areas. Because neither the dimensions of the region nor the characteristics of the features to be used as reference are specified, there is an inherent ambiguity in this definition, which in some cases might become the source of unnecessary confusion. This work presents a review of the various ambiguities that remain unaddressed on the definition of a VF, and that bear some connection with the definition of VPs in general, with special interest in intraplate settings. It is shown that questions such as a) how many volcanoes are required to form a VF and b) when two "neighbor" volcanoes should not be considered to be part of the same field, can be adequately addressed by adopting the techniques of cluster analysis. Other parameters might not be as easy to address including aspects related to total volume of magma erupted, overall composition of the erupted products and age spans of activity and intermediate gaps. Based on the evidence presented, it is shown that there is a continuum of clustering structures at various spatial scales, some of which have direct geodynamic interpretations. Consequently, it is argued that the need of producing more rigorous definitions of a VF and a VP is not a matter of mere academic interest, but it is required as an aid to appreciate the different scales at which volcanic activity can self-organize at a planetary scale.