4.7 Article

Research progress in China's Lop Nur

期刊

EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 111, 期 1-2, 页码 142-153

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.11.003

关键词

Arid environment; Playa evolution; Lup Nur

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41130533, 41171010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

China's Lop Nut is one of the world's largest playas, and is located in the driest part of Central Asia. Scientific explorations by Chinese and foreign researchers have been continuously conducted there since the mid- to late 1800 s, and much progress has been made, but many issues remain hotly debated. Particularly intense debate focuses on the formation, environmental evolution, drying date of the Lop Nur lake, and cause of the helical salt crusts recently revealed by remote-sensing images. In this paper, we review the status of this research to provide insights that can inform studies in other arid zones that resemble the Lop Nur. The Lop Nur depression is a secondary unit of the Tarim Block, controlled by faults and fractures formed by the Himalayan orogeny, but various competing explanations have been proposed for how these geological structures gave rise to the depression. The depression's formation date also remains unclear. Several boreholes have been created to reconstruct the environmental evolution at different time scales since the Quaternary, and deposition rates of lake sediments, especially since the Late Pleistocene, have averaged less than 1 mm annually. The drying date of the Lop Nur lake is also debated. The helical salt crust structures appear to have formed as the lake shrank, but how and when they formed is unclear. Huge potash reserves have been found, and large-scale potash fertilizer production has begun, but the origin of these deposits is debated. Understanding the factors causing environmental evolution in this region is a central issue that will help us to clarify these and other debated issues. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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