4.3 Article

Holocene lake-level changes of Hurleg Lake on northeastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and possible forcing mechanism

期刊

HOLOCENE
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 274-283

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0959683613517399

关键词

arid Qaidam Basin; northeastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau; lake-level changes; Hurleg Lake; Holocene; optically stimulated luminescence and accelerator mass spectrometry 14C dating

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41002060, 41272274]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Qinghai [2010-Z-715]
  3. Foundation of Youth Innovation Promotion Association of Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The palaeoshorelines of a lake are the direct geomorphic evidences to reflect past water levels and record information on palaeoclimatic changes. Previous research indicates that the timing and forcing mechanisms of climatic change on the northeastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (NE QTP) are still controversial. Here, we report quartz optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) ages for beach deposits and accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) C-14 age for plant remains, shoreline features and geomorphic exposures that contribute to a reconstruction of the lake-level history of Hurleg Lake on the NE QTP. The results imply that (1) three high lake levels are dated to 6.8-6.4, 5.0-4.7 and 2.2-1.4 kyr, corresponding to relatively wet and stable climate from pollen records of sediment core in this lake during mid-late Holocene; (2) the highest lake-level period occurred at 5.0-4.7 kyr, which is almost synchronous with the highest effective moisture phase from synthesized lake records influenced by the Westerlies and (3) no beach deposits around Hurleg Lake and lower lacustrine deposits in Toson Lake were found during early Holocene, suggesting lower lake level of Hurleg Lake in this period. These results might imply that the Westerlies and local topography rather than Asian summer monsoon dominate the moisture availability in this region during the Holocene.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据