4.6 Article

The planar shape of drumlins

期刊

SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGY
卷 232, 期 3-4, 页码 119-129

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2010.01.008

关键词

Glacial geomorphology; Quantitative geomorphology; Drumlin; Planar shape; Lemniscate loop; GIS; Remote sensing

类别

资金

  1. UK Natural Environmental Research Council [NE/D011175/1]
  2. British Geological Survey NERC [NER/S/A/2004/12102]
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/D011175/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [NE/D011175/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The asymmetry of the planar shape of drumlins is an established paradigm in the literature and characterizes drumlins as resembling tear drops with a blunt (bullet-shaped) stoss end and a tapering (pointed) lee end It is widely cited and never been seriously questioned In this paper the planar shape of 44 500 drumlins mapped in various regional settings from drumlin fields in North America and Northern Europe were objectively analysed by means of Geographic Information System tools Two parameters were considered The first (denoted here as As-pl) focuses on the relative position of the point of intersection between the axes of the maximum length and the maximum width It is defined as the distance between the upstream (ie beginning of the drumlin) and the intersection point (measured along the longitudinal axis) divided by the entire length of the long axis Results indicate that the intersection point of the majority of drumlins (64%) is very close to the longitudinal midpoint (0 33<0 66) The second parameter (As-pl_A) is defined as the ratio between the area of the upstream half of the drumlin to that of the entire drumlin Results show that for most drumlins (81%) the upper half area is almost as large as the down-half (0 45<0 55) Taken together these results concordantly indicate that drumlin planar shape has a strong tendency to be longitudinally symmetric and that the long-established paradigm of their plan form is false (C) 2010 Elsevier BV All rights reserved

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

4.6
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