4.3 Article

Morphological characteristics of phytoliths from representative conifers in China

期刊

PALAEOWORLD
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 116-127

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.palwor.2016.01.002

关键词

Phytolith; Conifer; Morphology; China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41271226, 41230104]
  2. China Geological Survey [12120113013900]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coniferous phytoliths in sediments are an effective tool for detecting the historical appearance of conifers. However, at the timberline in mountainous areas, such coniferous phytoliths are easily confused with grass phytoliths. This study analyses modern phytoliths from 17 conifer plants. Six common types and six rare types were identified. The conifers studied produce abundant blocky polyhedral and cubic (in the average 30-40 mu m size range), blocky scrobiculate (average 30-40 mu m), tabular elongate unsculpted (length 50-100 mu m, width 10-20 mu m), tabular elongate cavate (length 50-150 mu m, width 10 mu m), tabular elongate dendritic (50-100 mu m x 10-20 mu m), and irregular oblong (20-40 mu m) phytoliths. This paper aims to show morphological characteristics of coniferous phytoliths in China, and to show how the common coniferous phytoliths differ from similar grass phytolith types, such as blocky polyhedral coniferous phytoliths from silicified parallelepipedal bulliform cells produced by grass. Blocky polyhedral and cubic phytoliths are the commonest coniferous phytoliths found in the sediments, but need to be carefully distinguished from grass parallelepipedal bulliform cells. This study indicates that clearly protruding ridges and irregular inward edges are essential features of cubic and polyhedral morphotypes produced by conifers. Results of this paper might provide important material for the study of paleovegetation and paleoecology of mountainous areas, especially at the timberline. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. and Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, CAS. 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

4.3
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