����̶ˮ����ˮ�Գ�����׼վ���������仯��Ӱ��

??FG5??112?????????????й?????????????硱????????? ??JZ06????????4?ξ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????1??2001??2008??3?ι?????????????????20??10^-8ms^-2???????????????????????????????????????????15.4??10^-8ms^-2??????6.7??10^-8??ms^-2????2?????????仯??????????????????????????????????仯?????0.61??10^-8ms????^-2??/a???????????λ???????-0.18cm/a??????????????????仯??????????????????????????????????????????????????????     

����ʽ���������۲������Ư��Ӱ�����ط���

???ù???????????3??????????????????????????????????λ?????????????????????????????????????????о?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????DZW?????????????????????????????????????????????1 200??10 ^-8 ms ^-2 /a??????????????????????????????????????????????????峱????????????????????????????ν??з??????????????????в?仯?????????10~15????10 ^-8 ms ^-2??????3???4?????????????????????????仯???????о?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????μ?????????????     

GPS /VRS����ʵʱ���ܹ�������㷨�о�

??????????????????GPS/VRS????????,??????IGS?????????????GPS?????????????????????????GPS/VRS????ο???????VRS?????????????????????????GPS???????вο?????磨SGRSN????????????GPS??????磨SCIGN????????????????????????г?????????????????????????·??????и??????????????????????????????????0.004??10 ^-6??????????100 km?????RTK??λ??????????????????GPS/VRS????????????RTK??λ???????????????     

Improved-GRACE����������������Ż��о�

???????????????????ü????????????????GPS????????λ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Improved??GRACE?????????????????????????????????????????????1????300?????????350 km???????????????????????3.993??10 ^-1 m??????300 km??250 km???????????????????8.770????77.145????????400 km??450 km??????????????????8.718????75.307????2??????50 km???????????????????????3.993??10^-1 m??????110 km??220 km??????????????????1.259????1.395????3????????????Improved??GRACE????????????????????????????????350 km??50 km?????     

DZW���������Զ�����װ�õ�ԭ������

????????????????????????е?????·?????y????????DZW??????????????????40??10 ^-8 ms ^-2??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????в???????????????????????     

�봨8.0������ͬ���������α�ЧӦģ��

???????λ??????????е???????????????????Ms8.0???????????????????仯?????????????????????λ????????????????????????α?仯?????????????????????????????????????????仯????,????????????????????????????????????α?????????????????????????????仯?????10??10 ^-8 ms ^-2???￡??????????仯??????????50??10 ^-8 ms ^-2?????????????????????????     

�ŷ嶯����ز�������ʵ��վ������������

??10???????FG5-112?????????????й???????????????????о?????嶯??????????????????????68??????????ι????????????С??2??10 ^-8 ms ^-2???????????????????????С?????????????;????????????????????????????????????仯?????1??10 ^-8 ms ^-2 /a??????????λ???????-0.38 cm/a;??????????λ?仯??????????????????????????????     

����ȫ��������ģ�ͺͺ����ģ��ȷ��ƽ������λ����

???ò????????????EGM2008??EGM96???????????????CLS01??DNSC08??WHU2009??CNES_CLS10?????????????????????????μ???????????λ???????????????θ????????λ????????62 636 858.333 3 m ² s ^-2 ?? 62 636 858.260 6 m ² s ^-2??????????EGM2008??????????????λ???С??1.40 m ² s ^-2?????????????????????????????????     

������ֵ���㷨ʵʩ����λ�Ľ���չ��

?????????????????ELP2000-85???????????Newcomb????????????????????????????λ??????????, ?????????10 ^-11 ms ^-2 ??HS06????λ??????侫????XI89???????????????????     

�봨8.0������󴨸��½�������������仯

??8.0????????2008??9??12?￡????????????????????????????????????-???????????????????????????????????仯??????????仯??70??10^-8??ms^-2????????????????????仯???????????????????仯??????????????????仯?????     

短周期气压波对青岛台体应变的影响分析

利用相关分析、回归分析和交叉小波变换等方法，研究青岛台短周期（小于128 min）气压波和体应变的相关系数、气压系数和时频谱。结果表明，影响青岛台体应变的短周期气压波的优势周期为16~128 min。周期小于16 min（高频段）时，相关系数较小，随周期增大而增大；周期大于16 min（低频段）时，相关系数较大，趋于稳定。在相关系数较大且稳定的周期，气压系数为（3.5~3.6）×10-9/hPa，其中周期为16~64 min的气压系数随时间波动最小。交叉小波变换能更细致地揭示不同周期气压波和体应变在时频域的相关关系。     

安徽钻孔体应变与降雨、地下水位关系的研究

利用合肥台、黄山台钻孔体应变2013～2015年观测资料日均值与降雨引起的地下水位变化进行相关分析,同时考虑体应变变化的滞后性,使用Matlab计算水位和体应变不同滞后时间的相关系数,确定滞后天数;扣除滞后天数,再进行回归拟合分析,消除水位干扰。鉴于水位对体应变干扰的复杂性,在运用长周期数据时,以月为窗长进行回归分析,能较好地消除水位对体应变的干扰,利于体应变的趋势性判断。     

��GPS������ɽ�ֽ�ؿDZ�����Ӧ���ʳ�

?????й??????????????1999~2013????й?????????????????2009~2013???GPS????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????1????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????й????????????????????????????????????????????????Σ?77°E?????????45×10^-9/a???????????Σ?86°E?????????10×10^-9/a;2)???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????50~60??×10^-9/a??????????????40~50??×10^-9/a????????GPS?????????????10~15??mm/a??????????????????;3)?????????????????????????????????38°N?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????к?????????????????????????????????????????????Σ??????????????10~20??×10^-9/a???????????????;4)??????????????????????????????????б??Σ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????40×10^-9/a??5)????????????????λ???????????78°E??????????????30×10^-9/a??     

Sacks��Ӧ�����ղ������ղ��۲�ֵӰ�����ط���

?о???2003??2006???????????Sacks????????????峱??????????????????????????峱??????????????????????仯??????????????????????????????????????????????????0.533??????亯??????????????????????????????????????????????仯????????????????????????????????????????????????????6.28??10^-11/Pa??????亯?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Ч????￡????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????й??     

巴伦台分量钻孔应变在呼图壁MS6.2地震前的短临异常初探

呼图壁地震前巴伦台分量钻孔应变出现显著压性短临异常变化，排除仪器、气象及环境等干扰因素，认为该异常可能为地震前兆异常。利用超限率和S变换时频分析方法提取该异常，结果显示，信号集中在1 440~10 min频段，NS分量最大信号强度为185×10-10，EW分量最大信号强度为140×10-10。探讨此类异常变化特征，并对其原因进行分析。
     

温泉台体应变观测的影响因素及特征分析

为定量估计观测序列所包含的各种成分,评定台站的观测环境、观测质量及对地形变的监测能力,加深对观测数据的理解,准确识别震前异常,以温泉台体应变为例,选择体应变、辅助观测及气象三要素等观测数据,利用别尔采夫滤波、小波分析和相关性分析等方法,分析温泉台体应变观测各周期变化的影响因素及特征。结果表明：1）温泉台体应变年周期变化的影响因素可能为钻孔水位,体应变相位滞后水位约31 d;2）气压是温泉台体应变月波的主要影响因素;3）固体潮汐是温泉台体应变日波、半日波的主要影响因素;4）温泉台体应变与水位、气压、固体潮汐等具有较强的线性相关性。     

Relationships between body weight and other morphological traits in young sea cucumbers Apostichopus japonicas

Correlation, multiple regression, and path analyses were used to investigate the relationships between body weight and three other morphological traits in juvenile Japanese sea cucumbers Apostichopus japonicus. We measured live body weight(BW), body length(BL), numbers of papillae(NP), and numbers of tube feet(NF) at 60, 80, 100, and 130 days post-hatching(dph). We calculated path correlation coe cients, correlation indices( R~2), and coe cients of determination with BW as the dependent variable and the other morphological traits as independent variables. The coe cient of variation for BW was high across all age groups, and all measured morphological traits were significantly correlated( P 0.01). BL had the greatest direct ef fect on BW across all age groups(60 dph, 0.526; 80 dph, 0.404; 100 dph, 0.620;and 130 dph, 0.681), while NF had the greatest indirect ef fect on BW across all age groups(60 dph, 0.528;80 dph, 0.452; 100 dph, 0.666; and 130 dph, 0.603). Regression analyses between morphological traits and BW indicated that R 2 was greater than 0.85 only in the 100-dph specimens. The indirect ef fects of the other measured morphological traits on BW were age-dependent. The optimal regression equations,as determined with stepwise regression, were, for 60-dph specimens: BW_(60)=10~((-3.04+0.092 BL+0.014 NP+0.014 NF))( R~2 =0.632); for 80-dph specimens: BW _(80)=10~((-3.035+0.056 BL+0.017 NP+0.02 NF))( R~2 =0.686); for 100-dph specimens:BW_(100) =10~((-3.742+0.069 BL+0. 633*l g( NP)+0. 464*l g( NF)))( R~2 =0.893); and for 130-dph specimens: BW_(130)=10~((-2.472+0.065 BL+0.012 NP))( R~2 =0.774). Our work clarified the correlation between various morphological traits and body weight of a commercially-important sea cucumber species( A. japonicus). Our predictive models for body weight might be useful for the aquaculture and selective breeding of A. japonicus. These models might also provide theoretical support for the indirect selection of traits that are di cult to select directly.     

湛江港湾表层沉积物重金属的分布特征及潜在生态危害评价

利用双道原子荧光分析仪对湛江港附近海域表层沉积物砷、汞、铅、镉的含量进行了分析,阐明了这几种重金属的分布特征。结果表明,As的质量分数为(8.138~16.749)×10-6,平均12.745×10-6;Hg的质量分数为未检出(nd)~0.322×10-6,平均0.059×10-6;Pb的质量分数为(14.306~68.904)×10-6,平均44.258×10-6;Cd的质量分数为(1.561~6.882)×10-6,平均3.0874×10-6;砷、汞、铅从港内往港外有逐渐减少的趋势,镉的分布没有规律性,在整个港湾内的分布较均匀。从单因子污染指数看,砷、汞和铅都属生态危害轻微;镉污染较为严重,属生态危害强;从综合污染指数看,属生态危害中等。     

乌什体应变的气压响应特征分析

通过选取不同时段乌什体应变、气压观测数据,利用小波分析分离观测数据中的信号,将相同频段的体应变、气压进行相关性分析。结果表明,乌什气压对乌什体应变的影响主要表现为线性关系,并且有16~64 min和64~128 h两个卓越频段。     

Effects of a Potential Autochthonous Probiotic Bacillus subtilis 2-1 on the Growth and Intestinal Microbiota of Juvenile Sea Cucumber,Apostichopus japonicus Selenka

The effects of Bacillus subtilis 2-1 from the intestine of healthy sea cucumber on the growth, digestive enzyme activities and intestinal microbiota of juvenile sea cucumber(Apostichopus japonicus) were determined in the present study. Sea cucumber was fed with Sargassum thunbergii powder supplemented with B. subtilis 2-1 at different concentrations varying among 0(control), 10~5, 10~7, and 10~9 CFU g~(-1) for 8 weeks. Results showed that the growth performance and intestinal amylase and trypsin activities were significantly increased by dietary B. subtilis 2-1 at 10~9 CFU g~(-1)(P 0.05). However, dietary B. subtilis 2-1 had no significant influence on the lipase activity in sea cucumber(P 0.05). The polymerase chain reaction denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis indicated that dietary B. subtilis 2-1 at 105 and 107 CFU g~(-1) inhibited most of the Proteobacteria including those in genus Vibrio. Dietary B. subtilis 2-1 at 10~9 CFU g~(-1) not only decreased the abundance and species of genus Vibrio, but also increased the intensity of genera Psychrobacter and Bacillus. A specific dosage of dietary B. subtilis 2-1 could increase the growth and modulate the intestinal microbiota of sea cucumber; thus it might be a novel probiotic for keeping the health of sea cucumber.