京都
 大 学 防 災 研 究 所 年 報 第 49 号 C 平 成 18 年 4 月
Annuals of Disas. Prev. Res. Inst., Kyoto Univ., No. 49 C, 2006

Evaluation of Eruption Potential

Kazuhiro ISHIHARA

Synopsis
This manuscript proposed a concept ‘eruption potential’ and discussed its contents and data
and knowledge necessary for its evaluation. As one example, eruption potential at Sakurajima
volcano was shown: possibility of eruption in a few decades, possible styles of eruption, eruption
scenarios and expected hazards. In Japan, similar evaluation as Sakurajima might be possible atabout 20 volcanoes among 108 active volcanoes. At other volcanoes, it is difficult to evaluate
eruption potential.
Keywords: eruption potential, middle-term prediction, volcanic hazards, Sakurajima

1.

Introduction

There are 108 active volcanoes in Japan. Most of
volcanoes erupt after a dormant time of a few decades toseveral thousands years, and larger eruption at a volcano
in general needs longer rest. Volcanic eruptions are
generally ‘unexpected and unpredictable’: Clear
indication of eruptions, for example, swarm of felt
earthquakes appears immediately before the onset of
eruptions, 10 minutes to several days 㧔e.g. Ishihara,
1997㧕, though abnormal sign may be issued a few years
before eruption. For example, a submarine eruption
was unexpectedly generated in 1989 at Izu peninsula,where remarkable earthquake swarms had beenfrequently repeated since 1978.
However, few
scientists expected possibility of eruption until just before
the eruption, as the former eruption occurred about 2000
years ago, and the eruption site was fairly apart from thelocation of the previous eruption. Therefore, we needsome arrangements before volcanic crises to mitigate
volcanic hazards, even though no eruption was recorded
in historical time.
The strategy for the mitigation of volcanic disasters
should be composed of the following four items.
[1] Volcano monitoring and the system for quick transfer

of information on volcanic activity, including short-term
prediction of volcanic eruption.
[2] Volcanic hazards map, and education for people on
volcanic activity and hazards.
[3] Plan for volcanic crisis management and city
planning around volcanoes.
[4] Middle-to-long term evaluation of volcanic activity
based on geological survey and geophysical observation.
Here, middle-term evaluation means activity expected
in a few decades, and long-term one does activity in a
few centuries.
In Japan, the first one [1] has been done the Japan
Meteorological Agency (JMA) and the Coordinating
Committee of Prediction of Volcanic Eruptions(CCPVE) since 1974. At present, JMA conducts
continuous volcano monitoring at 25 volcanoes. The
second [2] and third ones [3] have been systematically
improved by national and local governments incooperation with scientists since 1992, and volcanic
hazards maps have been published for more than 30
volcanoes.
The most important one is the last [4]. The former
three are ‘explicitly or implicitly’ based on scientificknowledge and experience of experts in volcanology andvolcanic hazards. For example, volcanic hazards maps㧙㧙are made using mainly geological data on history of
volcanoes: time, sites, style and size of eruptions, andvolcanic hazards. The plan for volcano monitoring is
also effectively designed by middle-term evaluation of
volcanic activity.
For example, Usu volcano
observatory, Hokkaido University was established justbefore the 1977 eruption according to the strong
recommendation from Geodesy Counsel (1975) tonational government based on a report by volcanologists(Yokoyama et. al., 1973).
The report included
approximate time of eruption and eruption scenarios.
As a result, evacuation at the 1977 eruption was wellmanaged as well as the 2000 eruption.
Thus, middle term evaluation on volcanic activity iseffective and important for both the prediction of
volcanic eruptions and mitigation of volcanic hazards.
Such efforts have been however done until now by asmall group of scientists for limited number of active
volcanoes.
In this paper, we introduce the concept ‘Eruption
potential’ corresponding to middle-term evaluation on
volcanic activity, and discuss its contents and method of
evaluation.
2.

For example, Usu volcano erupted 5 times with theinterval of 31 to 57 years from 1769 to 1943. Yokoyamaet.al. (1973) estimated that the next eruption would occur
30 to 50 years after the 1943 eruption. The expected
eruption started in 1977, 34 years after the former
eruption. However, the 2000 eruption recorded theshortest dormant time of 23 years.
Miyakejima volcano erupted 9 times from 1643 to1983 with the time interval of 21 to 69 years. Miyazaki(1984) found an empirical formula on the periodicity oferuption: recurrent period=n(22㺎2.5) years. Here, n= 1, 2
and 3. And it was also recognized close relationshipbetween the amount of materials ejected by eruption andthe dormant time, as illustrated in Fig. 1. However, thelast eruption occurred in 2000, earlier than expected fromthe above empirical formula, 17 years after the 1983
eruption.
Thus, the recurrent time of past eruptions should be
noted as a useful but tentative scale for rough estimationon the time of forthcoming eruption. We needadditional information or other tools to evaluate
possibility of eruption in near future, as recurrent time oferuption at most of Japanese volcano seems to be at
random or uncertain.

Eruption Potential‘Eruption potential’ discussed here is capability of a
volcano to induce eruption in a certain range of time innear future. The contents of eruption potential should
ideally include the following information:[1] Possibility of eruption in forthcoming decades or in a
century[2] Scenarios of possible eruptions: size, style, andlocation of eruption, and volcanic process expected
before eruption.
[3] Possible hazards and affected area by eruption
These are mainly deduced from geological studies of t
past eruptions and volcano monitoring data. In thispaper, the previous studies related to eruption potentials
are reviewed, and the possibility, difficulty and limitation
on evaluation of eruption potentials are discussed,
focusing mainly on evaluation of possibility of eruption
in a few decades.
2.1 Recurrent Period
A few numbers of active volcanoes in Japan haverepeated significant eruptions with a fairly regular timeinterval.

Fig. 1 Accumulated volume of volcanic ejecta at
Miyakejima volcano (Ishihara et.al., 1984)
2.2 Seismic activity
It is expected that seismic activity may increas arounda volcano, if magma is accumulated to a certain level or
intrudes under the volcano.
The working group on long-term prediction of
CCPVE examined the possibility of eruption at Usu andMiyake volcanoes in 1997, using data on eruption history
and other data. The working group paid attention on a n
insignificant but gradual increase in annual number of
volcanic earthquakes, as illustrated in Fig. 2, and judgedthat eruption would probably occur within 10 years,
earlier than expected from recurrent time in the past, as a㧙㧙similar trend was also recognized before the 1977
eruption. The expected eruption occurred in 2000
accompanied with remarkable and expected earthquake
swarm from 3 days before the eruption. However, notethat exact estimation of the year of eruption is impossible
even at Usu volcano.

1983 and 2000 eruptions at Miyakejima volcano.
2.3 Ground Deformation
Monitoring of the ground deformation around thevolcanoes is probably the most direct tool to observe andevaluate accumulation of magma under volcanic areas.
The typical example is the ground deformation aroundthe Aira caldera associated with the eruptive activity of
Sakurajima volcano. The ground around the caldera
subsided remarkably just after the 1914 eruption which
extruded 1.9 km3 of lava, ash and pumice. Just after
summit eruption started in 1955, Sassa (1956) drew one
figure on the relationship between the grounddeformation of the Aira caldera and eruptions usingleveling data, as illustrated in Fig. 2, and suggested acontinuous magma supply to the underground of thecaldera. This figure stresses that summit eruption
continues or large eruption will be inevitable in near
future. As he expected, summit eruption has continued
for more than half a century.

Fig. 2 Annual number of volcanic earthquakes at Usu
volcano (Hokkaido University, 1997). Rapid increasein 1977 related to the 1977 eruption.
At some other volcanoes, seismic activity gradually
increases on the volcano or around it a few years toseveral decades before eruption.
For example,
significant earthquake swarms have been frequently
repeated 10 to 20 km west of the Unzen volcano since
1922 and migration of earthquakes toward the volcano
was observed before the 1990 eruption, as similar as the
1989 submarine eruption at the Izu peninsula.
These examples suggest that gradual increase of
seismic activity on volcanoes and significant seismic
activity around volcanoes are not the direct indication of
eruption, but might be one of signs issued by volcanoes
which are going to erupt in a few decades. It should
be stressed that it is difficult to evaluate abnormal
seismic activity in relation to volcanic activity with
monitoring data of short time. We need accumulation ofdata at least over 10 years. Note also that somevolcanoes may not indicate any increase in seismic
activity before eruptions. For example, no abnormal
seismic activity was observed before the onset of theFig. 3 Relationship between the ground deformation of
the Aira caldera and eruptions of Sakurajima (Sassa,
1956)
Similar pattern of the ground deformation was also
observed at Miyakejima volcano (Fig. 4). The groundaround the southern part subsided after the 1983 eruption,and recovery process has been observed. The working
group on long-term prediction of CCPVE concluded thatthe accumulation of magma charged after the 1983
eruption was almost enough to induce any eruption, andthe next eruption is inevitable in a few years. Expected
eruption was generated in 2000, though it was followedby unexpected collapse of the summit caldera.
Accumulation of leveling data useful for evaluationof eruption potential was limited for several volcanoes inJapan. Now, GPS network covers about 20 active㧙㧙volcanoes and will provide useful data for evaluation of
eruption potential.
However, we should never be overconfident of
deformation data.
Usu volcano did indicate no
deformation until the onset of the 2000 eruption. At
Izu-Oshima, the summit area did not indicate any
inflation just before the 1996 fissure eruption, thoughother data strongly suggested increase in activity. We
need some model on magma supply system to evaluate
deformation data accurately.

Fig. 4 Vertical displacement at the tidal station south
west of Miyakejima referred to BM 10242 (GSI, 1997).
The rapid subsidence corresponds to the 1983 eruption.
2.4 Other Information and data
Recently, it has been proved that geothermal,
geochemical and geomagnetic observations are usefultools for evaluation of eruption potential. For example,
geomagnetic change, electric resistivity change of theground and increase in geothermal activity has observed
a few months to a few years before the 1986 eruption at
Izu-oshima (Ishihara, 1997). Geoelectric, geomagnetic,
geochemical and geothermal data will become powerfultools for evaluation of eruption potentials by combinedwith seismic data at volcanoes which repeated phreatic or
small magmatic eruptions: Kusatsu-Shiraneyama,
Kuchinoerabujima and other volcanoes.
2.5 Condition for evaluation of eruption potential
Geological studies on volcano structure and past
eruption are of course indispensable for evaluation of
eruption potential as basic knowledge, but mainly used
for long-term evaluation of volcanic activity.
In
contrast, the role of geophysical and geochemical studies
and data is more important to evaluate eruption potential.
The data onditions necessary for evaluation of eruption
potential will be summarized as follows:[1] Accumulation of geophysical or geochemical data on
volcano monitoring over 10 years. This is most importantfor discrimination of abnormal activity from base-line
activity. The volcanoes which satisfy this condition areapproximately 30.
[2] Monitoring data which include epochs of significant
eruptions or volcano crisis and detected any abnormal
sign before eruptions. This is helpful to estimate
approximate time and size of eruption empirically. Thiscondition is fairly satisfied at about 15 volcanoes.
[3] There are some models on magma supply system or
subsurface structure of the volcano to be useful forevaluation or interpretation of observed data.
It may be possible to evaluate eruption potential at
volcanoes which satisfy all the three conditions
mentioned. Those are 9 volcanoes: Usu, Iwate, Asama,
Izu-Oshima, Miyakejima, Aso, Unzen, Sakurajima and
Izu-Tobu volcanoes. At all of these volcanoes, various
kinds of data have been accumulated including periodsof significant eruptions or volcano crises, and somemodels on magma supply system or undergroundstructure are proposed.
Evaluation of eruption potential might become
possible at approximately other 10 volcanoes, including
Mt. Fuji, with additional efforts. At these volcanoes,
volcano monitoring data of more than 10 years areaccumulated, and the probability of unexpected eruptions
will become low, if evaluation of eruption potential isdone and volcano monitoring and research are improved
In contrast, the probability of unexpected significant
eruptions is much high at other many volcanoes, mainly
due to lack in volcano monitoring.
In the next section, evaluation of eruption potential at
Sakurajima volcano is shown as a example.

3.

Evaluation of Eruption Potential of
Sakurajima

Sakurajima has repeated large eruptions in 764-766,
1471-1476, 1779-1982 and 1914. Time interval of large
eruptions seems to become short with time. These
eruptions ejected 1 to 2 km3 of lava, pumice and ash
from new craters formed on the flank. It was also
clarified from geological studies that Sakurajima hasrepeated large eruptions since the gigantic eruption of
25,000 years ago.
Sakurajima is one of the most well studied volcanoes㧙㧙in the world. Many researchers have been studied thevolcano and the Aira caldera, which is located at north ofthe volcano㧘and models of magma supply system were
proposed. One of them from geophysical studies(Kamo and Ishihara, 1980) is illustrated in Fig. 5.
[1] Two magma chambers are assumed, the one is themain one located approximately 10 km beneath thecaldera, and the other is shallow one 4-6 km deep underthe volcano.
[2] Magma rises up to the main chamber from deeper
portion at a constant rate of 107m3/y. and areaccumulated there. Then, it migrates under Sakurajima
volcano. The other pass way might exist from south ofthe volcano.
This model has been useful for evaluation of volcanic
activity and prediction of volcanic explosions until now,
together with other empirical laws, fore example, on
relationship among deep volcanic earthquakes, shallow
volcanic earthquakes and eruptive activity. Based on
this model and other information, we will try to evaluate
eruption potential at Sakurajima volcano.

discharged by the 1914 eruption (1.5 km3) has been
already charged again by 80 % under the caldera.

Fig. 6 Vertical ground deformation of the Aira caldera(BM 2474). Arrows indicate large flank eruptions, andhorizontal bars do periods of summit eruption
Recent deformation has been traced using GPS
network. Iguchi (2006) estimated that approximately
90 million cubic meters of magma was accumulated
during 10 years since 1995, as illustrated in Fig.7. If
inflation progress in a similar rate for 10 to 20 yeas,
accumulation of magma will reach the level just before
the 1914 eruption.

N
Fig. 5 A model on the magma supply system of
Sakurajima volcano.
3.1 Magma storage and urgency of eruption
The ground around the Aira caldera has behaved until
present as Sassa (1956) expected, as illustrated in Fig. 6.
The ground tentatively stopped inflation during two
highly active periods: 1960-1962 and 1974-1993, while a
few ten millions tons of volcanic ash was ejected eachyear. Inflation of the ground resumed since 1993 when
the amount of ejected ash decreased to a few million tons
per year. We may assume that amount of magma

Fig. 7 Recent volcanic activity of Sakurajima (Iguchi,2006). Monthly numbers of A-type earthquakes (top)and volcanic explosions (middle), and accumulated
volume of magma estimated from GPS data (bottom).

㧙㧙is imagined that magma conduit from the shallow
magma chamber to the crater becomes narrow due tocooling or magma becomes more viscous due to coolingand poor volatile contents. As the result, magma cannot
rise up smoothly, and B-type earthquakes and explosions
become rare. If such state continues, the conduit might
be closed, and magma may find other pass ways.
Though most plausible location of eruption is still thesummit crater, we must also take into account of otherplaces, those are, flank and seashore of the volcano, orsea bottom of the caldera like the 764-766 eruption andthe 1779-1782 eruption.

Fig. 8 Distribution of A-type earthquakes (Iguchi,2006). Open circles indicate those originated before 1988,
and closed circles do those during 2001 to 2004.
Note in Fig. 7 that the rate of accumulation ofmagma seems to increase since 2002 as synchronizedwith the increase in number of A-type earthquakes. In
particular, seismic activity southwest off of Sakurajima
and in the caldera increased, as illustrated in Fig.8. This
may suggest that pressure in the main magma reservoir is
gradually becoming high to make pass ways of magma
to go upwards. Seismic activity also seems to issue asign of forthcoming eruption together with the grounddeformation.
We might conclude that remarkable volcanic crises or
eruption will surely originate in 20 years. However,significant intrusion of magma from the caldera to
Sakurajima has not yet observed. It may take a few
years or more to activate significantly eruptive activity at
Sakurajima.
3.2 Eruption scenarios and volcanic processes
Eruption scenarios should include site, style and sizeof eruptions. In the following paragraphs, these are
discussed.
[Eruption site] During the period from 1955 until around2000, A-type earthquakes had been often followed byincrease of B-type earthquakes and explosive eruptions.
However, recently this relationship is not recognized. It[Eruption style] We may draw various scenarios, buthere, we show four probable ones. If eruption starts atthe summit, typical eruption style will become ofvulcanian, and may persist for a few decades (Scenario1). If new craters are formed on the flank, huge amountof volcanic ash and pumice will ejected at the onset of
eruption, and pyroclastic and lava flows will occur(Scenario 2), as experienced in the 1914 and other large
eruptions. There is the possibility of submarine
eruption in the Aira caldera (Scenario 3), sincesignificant seismic activity is recognized as illustrated in
Fig.8, and the 1779-1782 flank eruption was followed bysignificant submarine eruption: several islands wereformed northeast off of Sakurajima and citizens of
Kagoshima were suffered by tsunamis. The fourth
possibility is collapse of volcanic edifice (Scenario 4).
During the current activity, the location of active vent in
the summit crater has migrated and the crater wall
became thin. The partial collapse of the uppermost partof the flank might occur, when viscous magma rises as alava dome.
[Process before eruption] Sequence of phenomena
expected before eruption are described for each scenario,
based on experiences at Sakurajima and other volcanoes.
Scenario 1 (activation of summit eruption): Gradualuplift of Sakurajima (a few cm/y) caused by migration ofmagma from the caldera a few years before ĺ Increasein number and size of A-type earthquakes a few months
beforeĺ Increase in number of B-type earthquakes andvolcanic tremors
Scenario 2 (large flank eruption): Intermittently
significant earthquakes might be occurred around thecaldera a few years before 㸢 Significant uplift of
Sakurajima (more than several cm/month) due to rapid㧙㧙intrusion may start a few months to a few years before
㸢 Swarm of significant earthquakes start a few days
beforeScenario 3 (submarine eruption): Probably, abnormal
seismic activity in the caldera will be observed a few
weeks before eruption. If a local GPS network covers
and across eruption site, local deformation might beobserved.
Scenario 4 (Collapse of volcanic edifice): Probably,
similar to Scenarios 1 and 2, uplift of Sakurajima will beobserved ĺ Both significant earthquakes and local but
significant deformation of volcanic edifice might
continue for several days
3.3 Volcanic hazards and affected area
Kinds of volcanic hazards, affected area and others
expected for the four scenario-eruptions are summarizedin Table 1.
In case of re-activation of summit eruption, serious
damage due to volcanic blocks and ash may appear in
Sakurajima, and temporally in the area of downwind
direction due to ash-fall.
The other three scenario-eruptions will commonly
cause serious damages on life of people out of
Sakurajima. Large flank eruption like the 1914 and1779-1782 eruption will cause severe damage muchwider area. The eruption may affect on life of
approximately one million people out of Sakurajima:heavy ash-fall, debris flow, tidal wave due to subsidenceof the ground, collapse of houses, tsunamis, andland-slide due to strong earthquakes, and so on.
The most serious hazard by submarine eruption andcollapse of volcanic edifice may be tsunamis, as houses
and dikes of rivers and coast destroyed by repeatedtsunamis in the 1779-1782 eruption.
4.

Some Problem on Eruption Potential

In each century since 17th century, Japan has
experienced several big eruptions, which ejectedvolcanic materials more than 0.5 km3. The final one
occurred at Hokkaido-Komagatake in 1929. In 21st
century, the possibility of big eruptions is statisticallyvery high.
Systematic investigation of eruption
potential should be initiated urgently for mitigation of
volcanic disasters.
In addition, some caldera volcanoes, which caused
big eruptions in the past, indicate abnormal seismic
activity. For example, shallow earthquakes have beenintermittently swarmed at Mashu in Hokkaido andTowada in the Tohoku district. Both the volcanoes are
known from geological studies to generate big eruptions
about 1000 years ago. However, volcano monitoring isvery poor, and we have not enough data to evaluate
eruption potential. Volcano monitoring and researchshould be quickly begun.
5. Conclusions

Table 1 Eruption scenarios of Sakurajima volcano in near future
Eruption
Scenarios

Place

Activation ofsummit eruption
Large flank
eruption

Summit area of
Sakurajima
Flank or coast of
Sakurajima

Submarine
eruption

Aira caldera(Kagoshima bay)

Collapse of
Flank of Sakurajima
volcanic edifice

Main Hazards

damaged area
(km2)

volcanic blocks, ash, gases, and102
debris flows
mainly Sakurajima
Lava flows, pyroclastic flows,103-4
debris flows ,volcanic blocks, 㩷 Sakurajima and 50
ash and pumice, tidal waves, to 100 km around it
strong earthquakes, Tsunamis
Tsunamis, tidal waves, pumice,102-3strong earthquakes
Sakurajima andKagoshima bay
Volcanic blocks, rockavalanche, pyroclastic flows,
tsunamis, strong earthquakes

㧙㧙

102-3
Sakurajima andKagoshima bay

Duration(years)101-2
a few decades㩷
100
a few years

100
a few years
100
a few years

We proposed ‘Eruption potential’ as a concept on
middle-term evaluation of volcanic activity anddiscussed its contents, and data and knowledge necessary
for the evaluation. Eruption potential at Sakurajima
was evaluated as the first attempt. It was concluded thatpossibility of remarkable eruption in 20 years is very
high and, at present, four possible scenarios should beconsidered including submarine eruption in the Airacaldera. It may be possible to evaluate eruption
potential for about 20 volcanoes in Japan, in a similar
way as Sakurajima. However, it is difficult to evaluate
it for other volcanoes due to lack of data and knowledge.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to my seniors and present
staff of Sakurajima Volcano Research Center for efforts
to collect monitoring data of Sakurajima. This research
was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education,
Culture, sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) 21stCentury COE Program for DPRI, Kyoto University(No.14219301, Program Leader: Prof. Y. Kawata).

Data of the Coordinating Committee of Prediction ofVolcanic Eruptions.
Iguchi, M. (2006): Aira caldera storing magma, Chikyu
Monthly, Vol. 28, No.2, pp.115-127.
Ishihara, K. (1997): Research on the mechanism of
volcanic eruption with geophysical observation, Bull.
Volcanol. Soc. Japan, Ser. 2, Vol. 42, pp.445-458.
Kamo, K. and Ishihara, K. (1980): volcanic activity of
Sakurajima viewed from the ground deformation,
Report of Sakurajima area Investigation Committee,
Kagoshima Prefevtural Government, pp. 19-27.
Sassa, K. (1956): Some problems on the forecasting of
the earthquake (㸈), Proceedings the 5th anniversary of
the foundation of the Disaster Prevention ResearchInstitute, Kyoto University, pp. 3-7.
Yokoyama, I., Katsui, Y., Oba, Y. and Ehara, S. (1973):
Usuzan -Volcano geology, eruption history, current
activity and countermeasures for mitigation of disaster-,
Report of Research on Volcanoes in Hokkaido(Hokkaido Disaster Prevention Council), Vol. 3, pp.
227-237.

References
Geographical Survey Institute (1997): Ground volcano,deformation of Miyakejima, Data of the Coordinating
Committee of .Prediction of Volcanic Eruptions.
Hokkaido University (1997): Seismic activity of UsuἫጊྃἫࡐ࠹ࡦࠪࡖ࡞ߩ⹏ଔߦߟ޿ߡ

⍹ේ๺ᒄ

ⷐ ᣦ
ᧄⓂߢߪ㧘ἫጊྃἫߩ੍⍮ߣἫጊἴኂߩシᷫߦߣߞߡἫጊᵴേߩਛᦼ⊛㧔ᢙᐕ㧕ߥ੍᷹⹏ଔ߇㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁
⹺⼂ߦ┙ߞߡ㧘ྃἫࡐ࠹ࡦࠪࡖ࡞ߣ޿߁᭎ᔨࠍឭ␜ߒ㧘ߘࠇߦ฽߹ࠇࠆߴ߈ౝኈߣ⹏ଔߦᔅⷐߥ࠺࡯࠲࡮⍮⼂ߦߟ޿ߡ⺰ߓߡ޿ࠆ㧚᪉ፉࠍ଀ߣߒߡྃἫࡐ࠹ࡦࠪࡖ࡞⹏ଔࠍⴕ޿㧘ᒰ㕙ߩᐕߦ੍ᗐߐࠇࠆߟߩᵴേࠪ࠽࡝ࠝࠍ␜ߒ㧘ྃἫߦ޿ߚࠆㆊ⒟ߢ⊒⃻ߔࠆ⃻⽎㧘੍ᗐߐࠇࠆἴኂߣᓇ㗀▸࿐ࠍ⷗Ⓧ߽ߞߚ㧚ྃἫࡐ࠹ࡦࠪࡖ࡞⹏ଔ߇น⢻ߩ⍮⼂࡮࠺࡯࠲ߩ⫾Ⓧߩ޽ࠆἫጊߪᄙߊ⷗Ⓧ߽ߞߡ߽ో࿖ߢἫጊ⒟ᐲߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘߩઁߩἫጊߢߩ⹏ଔߪ࿎㔍ߢ޽ࠅ੍ᦼߖߧ
㗼⪺ߥྃἫ߇⊒↢ߔࠆน⢻ᕈ߇㜞޿㧚ࠠ࡯ࡢ࡯࠼:ྃἫࡐ࠹ࡦࠪࡖ࡞㧘ਛᦼ੍᷹㧘Ἣጊἴኂ㧘᪉ፉ㧙㧙