## 3 Results
### Subsidence in Lava Fields inside the EFA  
The same analysis was performed on the lava fields inside the EFA (result figures: Figures 6b, 7 and 8). Similar to the lava fields located outside the EFA, the inside lava fields show a trend of downward displacement all over the area during the study period (Figures 7 and 8). However, the subsidence pattern and behavior in the EFA display huge variability contrasts with the uniformity shown outside the EFA. First, the magnitude of subsidence is generally larger in lava fields inside the EFA than those outside. The majority of pixels falls into the cumulative subsidence interval 0.1-0.2 m, regardless of lava thickness and age (Figures 7 and 8). Four of five lava fields (the June 2000, Oct 2000, June 2001, and Nov 2002 lava fields) give maximum subsidence over 0.2 m (Figures 7 and 8). Second, the subsidence-thickness relationship behaves differently among the five lava fields. The June 2000 and Oct 2000 lava fields will be two remarkable exceptions since their subsidence magnitudes decrease with the increase of lava thickness (Figure 8a,b). They both display a linear trend and the decreasing rate of subsidence with lava thickness (the subsidence-thickness slope) of the June 2000 lava field (0.0042; Figure 8a), however, is significantly larger than that of the Oct 2000 lava field (0.0007; Figure 8b). Third,  
Figure 6: Temporal behavior of vertical displacement in lava fields located (**a**) inside and (**b**) outside the Eastern Flank Area (EFA). Light grey areas and black vertical lines represent the timing of eruptions and intrusions, respectively, which occurred in the study period (refer to caption of Figure 2 for timing). It is worth noting that at a certain point of time, the subsidence–age relation in Figure 6 cannot signify the subsidence–age relation of lava fields in general since the plot is based on time series observed at one point for each lava field. the subsidence-thickness slope and the age do not show any clear correlation. Indeed, the absolute subsidence-thickness slope of the Nov 2002 lava field (0.0052; Figure 8d) is larger than that of a one year older lava field (June 2001, 0.0034; Figure 8c). Nevertheless, the youngest lava field (Aug 2004) has the lowest slope among these three (Figure 8c-e). Furthermore, the June 2001 and Nov 2002 lava fields subside (m/m of thickness) about twice and three times more significantly than the lava that emplaced just one and two years ago in Feb 2000 outside the EFA (Figures 5c and 8c,d). More remarkably, the absolute subsidence-thickness slope of the June 2001 and Nov 2002 lava fields (0.0034 and 0.0052; Figure 8c,d) are even greater than the six years younger lava field that emplaced outside the EFA (Figure 5d). Lastly, relatively large norms of residuals for the June 2001 and Nov 2002 lava fields indicate that linear fits seem unable to satisfactorily explain the relationship between their subsidence and thickness. Figure 7: Cumulative U-D displacement and thickness maps for five lava fields located in the Eastern Flank Area (EFA). (**a**) June 2000 lava field, (**b**) Oct 2000 lava field, (**c**) June 2001 lava field, (**d**) Nov 2002 lava field, and (**e**) Aug 2004 lava field. Black circles indicate the selected points with 10 m of thickness for time series plots in Figure 6.  
Figure 8: _Cont._  
Despite all the differences, the time series of lava fields inside the EFA show a similar displacement behavior in time (continuous subsidence with rates decreasing in time) to those lava fields outside (Figure 6a,b). For a lava field that emplaced in June 2000 (blue squares in Figure 6b) is almost the same time as the Feb 2000 lava emplacement, however, the magnitude of the subsidence rate is more important (up to \(\sim\)0.07 m/year at the beginning of study period and \(\sim\)0.02 m/year at the end). As already mentioned, the subsidence at a certain time does not exhibit clear correlation with the lava age.