山东南部近海秋季长蛇鲻相对资源量的分布及其影响因素

为探究长蛇鲻(Saurida elongate)的生态习性和分布规律,并为长蛇鲻资源的合理利用与养护提供科学依据,本文根据2016年秋季在山东南部近海进行的渔业资源与环境调查数据,分析了该海域长蛇鲻的分布特征,研究长蛇鲻成体、幼体的分布差异,并利用广义可加模型(GAM)研究其分布与生物因子和环境因子的关系。结果表明,长蛇鲻成体与幼体的分布存在差异,成体分布范围广,幼体主要分布在30 m等深线及以浅水域。GAM模型的结果表明,饵料生物、底层水温、水深和底层盐度是影响长蛇鲻相对资源量分布的主要因子。成体、幼体的分布与影响因子的关系差异极显著(P<0.01)。长蛇鲻成体的相对资源量随饵料生物和底层水温的增加表现为先上升后下降的趋势,而幼体呈现一致上升趋势;成体和幼体的相对资源量随水深增加均呈下降趋势;幼体相对资源量随底层盐度增加有明显上升趋势,而盐度对成体的影响不显著。本研究认为山东南部近海是长蛇鲻的重要栖息地,水温和盐度是成体和幼体分布差异的可能原因。     

北祁连山东部早石炭世早期腕足动物群落的古地理意义

北祁连山东部早石炭世早期经历了一次完整的海水进退旋回。此期该区腕足动物的演化明显受控于相对海平面变化。生存环境的稳定性似乎是群落演替过程能否持久进行的基础。在影响生物群落演替的诸多因素中,底质性质及其稳定性最为重要,其次是食物供应、海水盐度和水动力强度等。各群落在时间上相互取代的主要控制因素是海水深度,与海平面的变化直接相关。而造成这一时期腕足动物群落横向变化的主要因素除了海水深度外,陆源碎屑供应量、海水循环性以及含盐度都具有十分重要的影响。本区早石炭世早期腕足动物群落的生态位介于BA1和BA2之间,缺乏BA3－BA5较深水群落（BA－Benthic Assemblage,底栖组合）,说明此期该区早石炭世早期海水深度一般不超过10米。受沉积古地理环境的制约,本区早石炭世早期BA2生态域的主要分布范围局限于东部的景泰一带,向西水体明显变浅。     

流变学:构造地质学和地球动力学的支柱学科

地球是一动态系统,其各层圈的构造运动归根到底就是多矿物复合岩石在各种物理条件(例如,温度、围压、差应力、应变速率、应变方式等)下和化学环境(例如,氧逸度和水含量)中的形变。流变学作为研究岩石力学性质和变形行为的科学,现已成为地球动力学和构造地质学的支柱学科。本文对国际上近年来岩石流变学的最新进展做些扼要的介绍,呼吁中国固体地学界加强流变学的研究,做出经得起时间淘洗、实践检验的原创性成果来,使中国的构造地质学研究迈进国际先进的行列。     

基于时序MODIS NDVI的黑河流域土地覆盖分类研究

归一化植被指数(NDVI)是植被生长状态及植被覆盖度的最佳指示因子,其时序数据也已成为基于生物气候特征开展大区域植被和土地覆盖分类的基本手段。基于时序NDVI数据的土地覆盖分类,即通过提取NDVI时间信号所包含的植被生物学参数,构建起一个包含植被生物学信息的分类特征空间。利用2006年重建得到的MODIS NDVI 16天合成时间序列数据,并结合1 km分辨率的DEM数据、野外实地调查资料等辅助数据,综合分析了不同土地覆盖类型对应的时序NDVI谱线及其第一、二谐波的特征阈值,建立决策树对黑河流域的土地覆盖开展分类研究。结果表明,基于时序MODIS NDVI谱线特征的决策树分类精度为78%,Kappa系数为0.74。利用1 km时序MODIS NDVI时间序列获得较为准确的黑河流域土地覆盖类型是可行的。     

Applied geophysics for cover thickness mapping in the southern Thomson Orogen

Abstract

Potentially mineralised Paleozoic basement rocks in the southern Thomson Orogen region of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales are covered by varying thicknesses of Mesozoic to Cenozoic sediments. To assess cover thickness and methods for estimating depth to basement, we collected new airborne electromagnetic (AEM), seismic refraction, seismic reflection and audio-frequency magnetotelluric data and combined these with new depth to magnetic basement models from airborne magnetic line data and ground gravity data along selected transects. The results of these investigations over two borehole sites, GSQ Eulo 1 and GSQ Eulo 2, show that cover thickness can be reliably assessed to within the confidence limits of the various techniques, but that caveats exist regarding the application of each of the disciplines. These techniques are part of a rapid-deployment explorers’ toolbox of geophysical techniques that have been tested at two sites in Australia, the Stavely region of western Victoria, and now the southern Thomson Orogen in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. The results shown here demonstrate that AEM and ground geophysics, and to a lesser extent depth to magnetic source modelling, can produce reliable results when applied to the common exploration problem of determining cover thickness. The results demonstrate that portable seismic systems, designed for geotechnical site investigations, are capable of imaging basement below 300 m of unlithified Eromanga Basin cover as refraction and reflection data. The results of all methods provide much information about the nature of the basement–cover interface and basement at borehole sites in the southern Thomson Orogen, in that the basement is usually weathered, the interface has paleotopography, and it can be recognised by its density, natural gamma, magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity contrasts.     

喜马拉雅造山带东、西构造结的地质特征与对比

喜马拉雅造山带的东、西两端分别有一个构造急剧转向的地区——构造结, 这里是探讨喜马拉雅造山带构造演化的重要场所.区域地质调查资料对比显示这2个构造结有: (1)相似的地貌景观; (2)相似的地质特征和演化历史, 即都缺失喜马拉雅沉积岩(寒武纪—第三纪); (3)结晶岩系中都有高压变质岩, 且在10 Ma以来均发生过深熔与混合岩化作用; (4)25 Ma以来, 特别是10 Ma以来两地都经历了快速剥露和隆升作用; (5)印度板块-欧亚板块的碰撞时间接近, 分别为75 Ma和65 Ma, 均早于喜马拉雅造山带的其他地区.这些相似性表明: 伸展拆离和以河流作用为主的地表过程是喜马拉雅造山带的东、西构造结快速剥露的主导因素; 因强烈剥露减压所致的地壳部分熔融作用形成的岩浆向地表减压处的流动在构造结的演化过程中起着重要作用.      

川西攀枝花—西昌地区结晶基底的划分

长期以来,由于同位素年龄依据不足和没有正确区分晚二叠世热接触变质岩、喜马拉雅期动力变质岩与前震旦纪区域变质岩,攀西地区结晶基底的划分存在许多困难和问题。本文依据1：50000区域地质调查结果,将原仁和群(Pt1R)修改为晚二叠世岩浆岩和喜马拉雅期动力变质岩,将五马箐(岩)组(Pt1w)和顶针杂岩(Pt1D)修改为晚二叠世热接触变质岩和喜马拉雅期动力变质岩,将安宁村组(Ptlα)和纸房沟组(Pt1z)修改为震旦系地层,并依据岩石学、岩石化学和微量元素地球化学特征,将结晶基底划分为变质侵入体、变质表壳岩和TTG套岩,论述了结晶基底的成因和演化。     

地名识别与匹配的概率统计方法

建立了一个试验用地名库和地理语料库,在此基础上构建对地名用字可信度的统计分析模型。通过分析地名在中文文档中的使用习惯和规律,总结出经常与地名一起使用的且具有地名指示含义的辅助字或词,以此为基础建立地名识别辅助词词库和地名识别的规则库。对地名库和地理语料库的用字进行统计分析,通过设定地名用字可信度概率阈值和辅助词指示作用对文本中潜在地名进行初步的筛选形成候选地名;在粗筛选产生的候选地名基础上结合地名识别规则进一步确认,以提高地名识别的准确率。     

Sunspot numbers based on historic records in the 1610s: Early telescopic observations by Simon Marius and others

Hoyt & Schatten (1998) claim that Simon Marius would have observed the sun from 1617 Jun 7 to 1618 Dec 31 (Gregorian calendar) all days, except three short gaps in 1618, but would never have detected a sunspot – based on a quotation from Marius in Wolf (1857), but mis‐interpreted by Hoyt & Schatten. Marius himself specified in early 1619 that for one and a half year... rather few or more often no spots could be detected... which was never observed before (Marius 1619). The generic statement by Marius can be interpreted such that the active day fraction was below 0.5 (but not zero) from fall 1617 to spring 1619 and that it was 1 before fall 1617 (since August 1611). Hoyt & Schatten cite Zinner (1952), who referred to Zinner (1942), where observing dates by Marius since 1611 are given but which were not used by Hoyt & Schatten. We present all relevant texts from Marius where he clearly stated that he observed many spots in different form on and since 1611 Aug 3 (Julian) = Aug 13 (Greg.) (on the first day together with Ahasverus Schmidnerus); 14 spots on 1612 May 30 (Julian) = Jun 9 (Greg.), which is consistent with drawings by Galilei and Jungius for that day, the latter is shown here for the first time; at least one spot on 1611 Oct 3 and/or 11 (Julian), i.e. Oct 13 and/or 21 (Greg.), when he changed his sunspot observing technique; he also mentioned that he has drawn sunspots for 1611 Nov 17 (Julian) = Nov 27 (Greg.); in addition to those clearly datable detections, there is evidence in the texts for regular observations. For all the information that can be compared to other observers, the data from Marius could be confirmed, so that his texts are highly credible. We also correct several shortcomings or apparent errors in the database by Hoyt & Schatten (1998) regarding 1612 (Harriot), 1615 (Saxonius, Tard´e), 1616 (Tard´e), 1617–1619 (Marius, Riccioli/Argoli), and Malapert (for 1618, 1620, and 1621). Furthermore, Schmidnerus, Cysat, David & Johann Fabricius, Tanner, Perovius, Argoli, and Wely are not mentioned as observers for 1611, 1612, 1618, 1620, and 1621 in Hoyt & Schatten. Marius and Schmidnerus are among the earliest datable telescopic sunspot observers (1611 Aug 3, Julian), namely after Harriot, the two Fabricius (father and son), Scheiner, and Cysat. Sunspots records by Malapert from 1618 to 1621 show that the last low‐latitude spot was seen in Dec 1620, while the first high‐latitude spots were noticed in June and Oct 1620, so that the Schwabe cycle turnover (minimum) took place around that time, which is also consistent with the sunspot trend mentioned by Marius and with naked‐eye spots and likely true aurorae. We consider discrepancies in the Hoyt & Schatten (1998) systematics, we compile the active day fractions for the 1610s, and we critically discuss very recent publications on Marius which include the following Maunder Minimum. Our work should be seen as a call to go back to the historical sources. (© 2016 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)