Observation and research progress of modern oceanic methane cycle
-
摘要: 当前出于对全球气候变化的担心以及获取能源资源的需求,甲烷日渐成为人类社会关注的焦点。海洋中聚集了巨量的天然气水合物,存在与甲烷有关的多种重要生化作用,支持了海底繁盛的化能自养合成生物群落,有效调节了进入大气的甲烷通量,在全球碳循环中的地位无可替代。同时,因天然气水合物动态活动造成的甲烷泄漏是岩石圈向外部圈层进行物质和能量输送的重要途径,对海洋环境有着深远影响。系统介绍了现代海底甲烷泄漏的地质控制因素、沉积物和水体对富甲烷流体的消耗、海洋甲烷循环模拟研究以及全球典型海域甲烷观测及相关研究成果,最后指出了海洋甲烷循环研究发展趋势。综合考虑了环境、生物和技术因素对海洋甲烷循环的影响和限制,从一个地质工作者的视角对阶段成果和存在问题进行审视,并提出了自己的思考,借此引发全社会对与甲烷有关的重大科学问题及海洋观测技术的重视与支持。Abstract: Out of concern for global climate change and the demand for energy resources, methane has increasingly become the current focus of human society. A large amount of natural gas hydrate is stored in the ocean, which has many important biochemical reactions related to methane, supports the prosperous chemoautotrophic synthetic biological community on the seabed, effectively regulates the methane flux into the atmosphere, and plays an irreplaceable role in the global carbon cycle. At the same time, methane seepage caused by the dynamic activity of natural gas hydrate is a critical way to transport material and energy from the lithosphere to the outer sphere, which has a far-reaching impact on the marine environment. In this paper, we systematically introduce the geological control factors of modern seabed methane seepage, the consumption of methane by sediments and water columns, the simulation research of marine methane cycle, the methane observation and relevant research results in typical sea areas, and finally points out the development trend of marine methane cycle research. This review comprehensively considers the influence and limitation of environmental, biological and technological factors on the marine methane cycle, examines the temporary achievements and existing problems from the perspective of a geologist, and puts forward our own thinking, hoping to arouse the attention and support of the whole society to the major scientific problems related to methane and subsequent marine observation technology.
-
海湾具有独特的自然环境和优越的地理位置,对人类生存及社会发展具有极其重要的意义[1],然而海湾是一个相对封闭的海洋环境,其水交换能力较差,生态环境较为脆弱,对人工构筑物建设等人类活动的干扰较为敏感[2]。人工构筑物的建设可以有效增加自然岸线、提高海洋资源利用效率,但人工构筑物的建设会改变原有海域的地形条件,直接或间接地影响海洋生态环境[3],导致所在海域潮流、潮位、波浪等水动力条件发生变化[4-5],甚至经常引起更大程度的极端事件以及海平面上升现象[6]。因此,为了保护海湾环境实现可持续发展,研究人工岛建设等人类活动对海湾环境的影响尤为重要[1, 7]。
围填海工程建设等人类活动对水动力环境的影响,一直以来吸引着国内外学者的广泛关注。近岸潮汐的变化与围填海工程的建设密切相关[8],Byun等[9]认为在潮汐占主导地位、壅塞的河口或港湾环境中建造堤坝或海堤等围填海工程,可能导致潮汐振幅显著增加和水流速度下降。围填海工程的建设不会导致潮流特征大范围改变,仅在工程区域附近有较大变化[10],流向受工程影响会发生偏转,工程防波堤等会引起挑流作用的区域流速增大,其余区域流速普遍减小[11-12]。法国兰斯河口世界第二大潮汐电站[13]以及加拿大芬迪湾潮汐动力潟湖工程[14]对附近潮流也产生了类似的影响。海岸的形态对于波浪能的耗散具有关键作用[15],围填海工程造成的海岸形态的改变往往会中断与波浪条件相关联的沿岸泥沙输运,同时会破坏海岸抵抗风暴的能力[16],但设计良好的防波堤会有效减小入港波浪的有效波高,从而达到保护港口的目的[17-18]。围填海造成的海域面积减小会直接导致纳潮量减少[19-20],例如马尔代夫国际机场扩建工程[21]、雅加达湾巨型海堤[22]以及胶州湾围填海工程[23]等。水交换也会受到围填海工程的影响[24],岸线大规模的改变会导致水交换能力减弱,通过修复岸线对水交换能力具有促进作用[25],岸线变迁引起的水动力环境的改变是影响水交换率的主要因素[26]。此外,还有学者在水动力环境变化的基础上探讨了冲淤环境以及地貌演变对海岸工程建设的响应[27-29],同时对于围填海工程造成的水质污染[30-31]、海洋生物受损[32-33]等方面的研究也有很多学者涉猎。然而,前人的研究多集中于河口或者较为开阔的海湾或海域中围填海工程的建设,对于小海湾中大规模离岸人工岛群建设对海洋环境影响的相关研究却鲜有报道,因此,本文针对龙口湾水动力特征及其对人工岛群建设的响应进行较为全面的研究。
龙口湾面积约84.13 km2,龙口人工岛面积约35.23 km2,约占龙口湾面积的41%,因此,在龙口湾这类小海湾中建设大规模的围填海工程,势必对其海洋生态环境造成明显影响。刘星池[34]等通过建立龙口湾水沙数值模型来预测人工岛建设对海洋环境的影响,人工岛建设会导致龙口湾潮流流速流向均发生不同程度的变化,冲淤特征表现为人工岛北侧和西南侧海域以冲淤为主,西侧海域以侵蚀为主[35],人工岛外悬浮泥沙浓度和悬沙通量大于岛内水道[36],同时表层沉积物组合特征也产生了重要变化[37]。但是,目前对于人工岛群建设对龙口湾水环境的影响研究主要集中在潮流场变化,缺乏其对水动力环境的系统研究;同时,龙口人工岛的实际建设方案与设计方案存在明显差异,导致前人对于该区域的研究存在误差,不能完全反映人工岛群建设对龙口湾水动力特征的影响。因此,本文利用龙口湾以及附近海域的水深地形、潮汐潮流等实测资料,利用Mike21数学模型,分析了人工岛建设前后龙口湾的水动力特征,并在此基础上探讨了人工岛群建设对龙口湾潮流、波浪、潮位、纳潮量以及水交换的影响。
1. 研究区概况
龙口湾为莱州湾的一个附属海湾,湾廓呈半圆形,是典型的连岛坝成因的次生海湾[38]。20世纪90年代以来龙口湾海岸开发活动不断增多,极大地改变了龙口湾的海岸形态和地形地貌[39],其中以龙口人工岛规模最大。除航道外,湾内水深不足10 m,湾外水深一般为10~20 m(图1)。屺坶岛以南的连岛海岸以基岩海岸或人工岸线为主,人工岛群以南主要为砂质海岸。表层沉积物主要以粉砂和砂为主,湾外沉积物粒径较粗[40]。潮汐性质为不规则半日潮,潮流性质以不规则半日潮流为主,潮流运动形式主要为往复流[41]。波浪以风浪为主,湾内常浪向为SW向,强浪向为WSW向,湾外常浪和强浪向均为NE向[42]。
2. 研究方法
2.1 潮流场数值模拟
本文潮流场模拟采用Mike21中的Flow Model FM HD模块[43]进行,模拟采用非结构三角网格剖分计算域,计算域范围如图2所示,坐标范围为36°59′15.743″~40°59′21.417″N、117°32′22.881″~122°39′30.992″E,覆盖整个渤海海域及部分北黄海海域[44]。人工岛群建设前后除工程区域外其他位置的网格一致,增强了前后对比的准确性和可靠性。
对位于潮滩区的干、湿网格采用动边界的方法进行处理。为能清楚了解研究区所在海域潮流场特征,对该海域网格作局部加密处理。水深资料采用中国人民解放军海军航海保证部制作的海图1∶100万(10011号)、1∶15万(11370号、11570号、11710号、11840号、11910号、11932号)水深资料及研究区附近海域最新实测水深资料。
2.2 波浪场数值模拟
波浪场模拟采用Mike21中的SW浅水波浪数值模块,该模型广泛适用于大范围或者局部区域的波浪预报和分析以及不同历史条件下近海、海岸和港口结构物设计过程中的波浪情况预报[45]。
波浪数值模拟的计算域及网格、岸界和水深资料与本文潮流场数值模拟设置一致,分别模拟了研究区N向和SW向六级风(12 m/s)作用24小时下的波浪场状况,以此来探讨人工岛群建设对龙口湾波浪场的影响。
2.3 纳潮量计算
纳潮量是一个水域可以接纳潮水的体积,海湾的纳潮量不仅是衡量海湾开发价值的一个水文指标,而且也是反映湾内外水交换的一个重要参数[46],本文对纳潮量的计算采用叶海桃[47]等对三沙湾纳潮量的算法,其公式如下:
$$ P = \Delta H{A_0} + \mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^n \Delta H_i'{A_i}$$ (1) 式中:
$ P $ 为纳潮量,单位:m3;$ \Delta H $ 为潮差,单位:m;$ {A}_{0} $ 为最低潮位下水域面积,单位:m2;$ \Delta {H}_{i}' $ 为潮滩上第$ i $ 个网格高潮位时的水深,单位:m;$ {A}_{i} $ 为第$ i $ 个网格上最低潮位时的水域面积,单位:m2。由于龙口人工岛最西侧填海区域超出了龙口湾界线(37°32′15.982″~37°40′12.993″N、120°13′26.819″~120°13′43.580″E),无法采用原龙口湾的界线来计算纳潮量,因此本文选取从屺坶岛至石虎咀断面和海岸线封闭的区域为本文计算区域(图1),以下简称“计算区域”。
2.4 水交换计算
水交换是海洋环境科学研究的一个基本命题,水交换率的计算是研究海湾自净能力的重要指标和手段[48]。本文对水交换率的计算采用保守污染物浓度扩散的方法[49],在Mike21水动力数值模型中,初始时刻将计算区域内示踪剂浓度设为1,外海域设为0,其他水动力条件保持不变,得到水交换率等于(1–浓度值)×100%。水交换计算区域与纳潮量计算区域一致,计算时长30 d。
3. 结果
3.1 模型验证
本文收集了大连、旅顺、鲅鱼圈、曹妃甸、大口河、潍坊港、北隍城、八角、烟台港、龙口港等10个潮位站历史观测资料并采用傅氏分析方法[50]进行调和分析,选用M2、S2、K1、O1四个分潮的调和常数预报出大潮期的潮位变化,同时结合中国海洋大学2017年5月10—11日在工程附近进行的2个站位的潮位观测资料进行潮位验证;采用2017年5月10— 11日(大潮)6个站位27小时海流同步连续观测资料进行流向流速验证,验证结果表明,模拟结果和实测值吻合较好。限于篇幅限制,本文仅列出研究区周边的潮位验证曲线(C4站位和龙口港)和潮流验证曲线(C4、C5和C6站位),见图3和图4。
3.2 潮流场特征
3.2.1 人工岛建设前潮流场
潮流场数值模拟结果表明,在涨急时刻,湾外潮流流向整体上为西南向,受地形影响较小,流向变化较小,湾内潮流方向主要为西南向和南向,在屺坶岛西南侧潮流转为东南向,进入湾内则变为东向,向南逐渐转为西南向;流速在屺坶岛西侧最大,可达0.68 m/s,龙口湾内流速较小,整体小于0.2 m/s,且越靠近岸线流速越小。落急时刻的整体规律与涨急时刻相反,潮流带为明显的往复流形式,湾外潮流流向整体上为东北向,湾内潮流流向在龙口湾内受地形影响发生逆时针旋转,转为西北向至屺坶岛流向湾外;流速在屺坶岛西北侧最大,可达0.8 m/s,龙口湾内流速分布与涨急时刻类似(图5)。
3.2.2 人工岛建设后潮流场
人工岛建设后,龙口湾潮流场特征发生了明显的改变。涨急时刻,湾外潮流流向整体上为西南向,流向变化较小,湾内潮流流向较为复杂,整体上围绕人工岛外侧流出湾内,小部分进入岛内水道,在人工岛防波堤内存在一个漩涡;湾外流速较大,为0.2~0.8 m/s,流速由北向南逐渐减小,湾内流速整体小于0.1 m/s。落急时刻潮流流向整体上与涨急时刻相反,湾外潮流流向整体上为东北向,湾内潮流在人工岛南部逆时针转为西北向,在人工岛防波堤处一部分向北流出湾内,一部分转为东方向进入龙口港围绕岸线流向湾外;湾外流速为0.2~0.8 m/s,湾内流速整体上小于0.1 m/s(图6)。
3.3 波浪场特征
3.3.1 SW向6级风作用下波浪场特征
人工岛建设前,SW向6级风(风速12 m/s)作用12小时情况下,湾外有效波高较大,大部分区域有效波高大于1.2 m,受SW向风和地形的影响,波高等值线形态向南凸出。湾内有效波高整体小于1.2 m,近岸人工构筑物的掩蔽作用[51]较为明显,在龙口港内以及屺坶岛南侧部分半封闭区域形成波影区,有效波高小于0.4 m;受湾内水深影响,波高等值线变化率较快,且逐渐趋于与岸线平行(图7)。
人工岛建设后,SW向6级风作用12小时情况下,湾外的波浪特征并未发生明显的变化,有效波高整体上大于1.2 m,波高等值线形态向南凸出。湾内有效波高整体减小,屺坶岛南侧局部区域有效波高能达到1.3 m左右,其他区域有效波高小于1.1 m。人工岛的建设使得龙口湾的地形变得更为复杂,除龙口港内和屺坶岛附近形成波影区外,人工岛水道内也形成波影区,波影区有效波高小于0.4 m。
3.3.2 N向6级风作用下波浪场特征
人工岛建设前,N向6级风(12 m/s)作用12小时情况下,湾外有效波高整体较大,大部分区域有效波高大于1.65 m,受N向风和地形的影响,波高等值线形态向南凸出。湾内有效波高整体小于1.2 m,波高等值线形态向东凸出,受湾内水深影响,波高等值线变化率较快,且逐渐趋于与岸线平行(图8)。
人工岛建设后,N向6级风作用12小时情况下,湾外的波浪特征并未发生明显的变化,有效波高整体上大于1.65 m。湾内有效波高整体减小,在人工岛防波堤处波高骤减,形成波影区,湾内有效波高整体小于1.35 m,人工岛建设区域有效波高形态变化较大,人工岛北侧区域有效波高形态变化较小。
3.4 纳潮量
本文分别计算了人工岛建设前后大潮期和小潮期的纳潮量,结果如表1所示,人工岛建设前大潮期纳潮量1.3620×108 m3,小潮期纳潮量9.1227×107 m3,平均纳潮量1.1371×108 m3;人工岛建设后大潮期纳潮量1.1749×108 m3,小潮期纳潮量7.8660×107 m3,平均纳潮量9.8075×107 m3。相比工程建设前后,大潮期纳潮量减小了13.74%,小潮期纳潮量减小了13.78%,平均减小了13.75%,可见人工岛的建设对计算区域纳潮量的影响很大。
表 1 人工岛建设前后纳潮量Table 1. Tidal prism before and after construction of artificial island潮况 建设前纳潮量/m3 建设后纳潮量/m3 变化量/m3 变化率/% 大潮 1.3620×108 1.1749×108 −1.8710×107 −13.74 小潮 9.1227×107 7.8660×107 −1.2567×107 −13.78 平均 1.1371×108 9.8075×107 −1.5635×107 −13.75 3.5 水交换
根据计算区域30 d的水交换率计算结果(图9),人工岛建设前,30 d平均水交换率为62.58%,在计算边界附近水交换能力最强,水交换率为80%~90%,水交换率由边界处向湾内依次递减,越靠近岸线减小速率越快,在龙口港附近最弱,水交换率小于20%。人工岛建设后,30 d平均水交换率59.82%,在计算边界附近水交换率在80%左右,在龙口港附近及人工岛内部水域水交换率迅速减小,龙口湾内水交换率小于20%,局部区域小于5%,人工岛内部水道水交换率为0~80%,南部和西部区域可达80%,中间水道局部区域水交换率小于5%。
4. 讨论
4.1 人工岛的建设对潮流场的影响
(1)潮流流向变化
人工构筑物的建设会引起潮流流向的偏转[52],本文中将人工岛建设前后的流场进行了叠加并将变化明显的区域进行了局部放大(图10、图11)。可见人工岛建设后,在涨急时刻人工岛西北侧(A区域)流向顺时针偏转,人工岛北侧区域(B区域)由原来的开放海域变成半封闭海域,潮流流向在此变化较为复杂,整体上顺时针偏转,人工岛西侧(C区域)由于人工岛防波堤的挑流作用形成了一个逆时针旋转的漩涡,人工岛南侧(D区域)潮流流向逆时针偏转(图10)。在落急时刻人工岛西北侧(A区域)流向顺时针偏转,人工岛北侧(B区域)流向整体上逆时针偏转,人工岛西侧(C区域)和人工岛南侧(D区域)流向逆时针偏转(图11)。
(2)潮流流速变化
本文分别选取了工程建设前后大潮期涨急时刻和落急时刻的潮流场进行了流速对比(图12)。通过对比分析,龙口人工岛建设前后,研究区的潮流场特征发生了较为明显的变化,尤其是在人工岛附近区域变化更为明显,具体表现在:人工岛西部靠近防波堤的区域由于挑流作用[53]流速增大,最大流速变化超过0.4 m/s,变化率可达60%,涨急时刻流速变化相比落急时刻变化较大,距离防波堤越远,流速变化越小。李池鸿[54]等基于Mike21模型对新建的洋浦神头港区南港区码头工程进行了研究,结果表明工程后防波堤口门附近涨、落潮都会因挑流的影响局部流速会变大。人工岛的建设阻挡了部分区域原有潮流的流动,致使潮流流速减小,在人工岛北部,流速整体减小,涨急时刻减小范围大多为0.08~0.16 m/s(变化率30%~70%),极少数区域超过0.16 m/s;落急时刻流速变化较大,流速减小超过0.16 m/s(变化率约70%)的区域大幅增加;在人工岛内部水道以及人工岛南部区域,流速减小,涨落急时刻变化较为相似,流速减小范围整体上为0.08~0.16 m/s(变化率30%~70%),在界河口的一小部分区域流速减小范围超过0.16 m/s。潮流流速的变化可能是引起人工岛北侧、西南侧和内部水道产生淤积以及人工岛西侧发生冲刷[35]的主要原因。
(3)余流场变化
为了分析人工岛建设对龙口湾余流场的影响,本文选取了潮流数模结果中一个完整大小潮周期(15天)的流速流向计算了人工岛建设前后研究区的欧拉余流(图13),并进行了差值对比(图14)。人工岛建设前,龙口湾湾外除屺坶岛附近区域外余流流向整体上为北向,流速普遍在0.05 m/s左右,在屺坶岛西北侧和西南侧分别形成一个顺时针漩涡和逆时针漩涡,流速为0.05~0.15 m/s,龙口湾西侧存在一个顺时针漩涡,其流速在0.05 m/s左右;湾内余流流向较为复杂,余流从龙口湾西北侧进入后分为两支,一支整体呈逆时针运移在龙口湾北侧流出,另一支呈顺时针运移在龙口湾南侧流出。
人工岛建设后,湾外余流场未发生明显变化,湾内余流场变化较为明显,具体表现在人工岛西侧形成一个逆时针旋转的新漩涡,且流速增大,增大范围为0.03~0.4 m/s,人工岛北部余流整体上分为两支,一支逆时针运移在屺坶岛附近流出龙口湾,流速较人工岛建设前减小,另一支顺时针运移在人工岛防波堤处流出,流速略有增大,人工岛西南侧区域余流整体上向西南方向运移,流速较人工岛建设前减小。
4.2 人工岛建设对波浪场的影响
海域波浪场的分布特征与水深、地形和风速风向等要素密切相关,在岸线走向、海底地形、风速风向的影响下,波浪在传播过程中会发生一定的折减、绕射等衰减现象[55-56]。本文为了更好地分析人工岛的建设对波浪场的影响,将人工岛建设前后的有效波高做了差值对比(图15),在SW向6级风作用下,湾外有效波高未发生明显变化;湾内变化主要集中在人工岛北部及内部水道区域,其中人工岛内部区域有效波高变化最为明显,人工岛对该区域的掩蔽作用较强,导致有效波高在此明显减小,有效波高减小范围为0.3~1.2 m(变化率24%~96%);人工岛北部海域人工岛的掩蔽作用较小,该区域有效波高减小,减小范围为0.15~0.6 m(变换率12%~48%)。在N向6级风作用下,湾外有效波高未发生明显变化,湾内变化主要集中在人工岛水道及人工岛西南侧区域,人工岛的掩蔽作用导致该区域的有效波高相对人工岛建设前整体减小,在人工岛防波堤处有效波高减小可达1.2 m,变化率可达96%。
波浪对比结果表明,龙口人工岛的建设导致工程附近区域的波浪有效波高整体减小,其影响范围主要集中在人工岛周边。顾杰[57]等研究结果也表明工程实施前后的波高变化仅集中在工程区域附近,工程的建设使该区域波高显著减小。
4.3 人工岛的建设对潮位的影响
围填海的建设会导致潮位产生一定的变化[58],为此,我们在人工岛北部、西部、南部以及人工岛内部共选取了12个代表点(图1)分别计算了大潮期一个潮周期内的最大潮差变化,计算结果如表2所示。通过对比分析发现,在人工岛北部潮差减小,最大潮差变化在–0.017 m左右,这主要是由于人工岛的建设使得该区域的潮汐动力减弱,致使潮差变小[59];在人工岛西侧潮差变化较小,呈现出离人工岛越远变化越小的趋势;人工岛南部潮差增大,距人工岛1000 m的位置潮差增大约0.014 m,远离人工岛变化逐渐变小;人工岛内部水道由于壅水作用[60]潮差变化最为明显,最大潮差变化可达0.047 m。胶州湾跨海大桥的建设对胶州湾潮差的影响普遍小于0.01 m[61],相比龙口人工岛建设引起的潮差变化较小,其主要原因是龙口人工岛占据的过水面积比例更大,对水流特征的影响更明显。
表 2 人工岛建设前后代表点潮位变化Table 2. Tide changes before and after construction of artificial island (spring tide)位置 站号 工程前最大潮差/m 工程后最大潮差/m 最大潮差变化/m 人工岛北 1 1.080 1.063 −0.017 2 1.076 1.063 −0.013 人工岛西 3 1.095 1.087 −0.008 4 1.100 1.094 −0.006 5 1.109 1.104 −0.005 人工岛南 6 1.107 1.121 0.014 7 1.118 1.126 0.008 8 1.138 1.139 0.001 人工岛内 9 1.085 1.066 −0.019 10 1.092 1.139 0.046 11 1.091 1.070 −0.021 12 1.097 1.144 0.047 4.4 人工岛的建设对纳潮量的影响
人工岛群的建设直接占用了计算区域的海域面积,改变了原有水动力环境,龙口人工岛建设后,本文计算区域的海域面积减少20.68%,大潮期纳潮量减少13.74%,小潮期纳潮量减少13.78%,平均纳潮量减少13.75%。本文整理了前人对于不同海湾纳潮量的研究成果(表3),通过对比发现,莱州湾和罗源湾围填海造成的海域面积减少对纳潮量的影响相对较小[62-63](纳潮量变化率小于海域面积变化率),锦州湾、芝罘湾、湛江湾以及象山港海域面积减小引起的纳潮量变化较大[64-67](纳潮量变化率大于海域面积变化率),可见,本文计算区域纳潮量的变化与莱州湾和罗源湾较为相似。总体而言,人工岛群的建设是造成计算区域纳潮量减少的主要原因,这与诸多海湾受围填海影响导致纳潮量减小的结果是相符的。
4.5 人工岛的建设对水交换的影响
人工岛群建设后,本文研究区域的地形岸线变得更为复杂,对原有的水交换能力产生了一定的影响,尤其是在人工岛群附近及其内部水道,水交换率有了明显的改变,我们将人工岛建设后的30 d水交换率做了差值对比(图16),在人工岛建设后,计算区域30 d平均水交换率减小2.76%,具体表现在人工岛北部靠近屺坶岛的区域和人工岛南部界河附近区域水交换率明显变大,在人工岛内部水道及北部附近区域水交换率明显减小。本文收集了其他海湾水交换率的变化情况[62, 66-68](表4),通过对比发现,水交换率的变化与海域面积的变化并无明显相关关系,尤其是湛江湾和锦州湾,在减少更多面积的情况下,平均水交换率变化幅度反而减小。因此,围填海造成的海域面积减小对水交换率的直接影响不大,其引起的水动力环境的改变是影响水交换率变化的主要原因[66]。
5. 结论
(1)人工岛建设显著改变了龙口湾潮流场特征,湾内受到人工岛的阻挡,流速普遍减小,局部区域潮流运动形式由往复流变为旋转流,流向变化较大,余流形成多个涡旋;湾外由于堤头挑流作用导致局部区域流速增大和余流流速增大的特征,潮流运动形式未发生明显改变。
(2)受人工岛的掩蔽作用,人工岛及附近区域的波浪有效波高普遍减小,减小幅度主要为0.3~1.2 m,其中在西南向6级风作用下,人工岛北部有效波高减小明显,在北向6级风作用下,人工岛西南部有效波高减小明显。
(3)龙口湾潮位出现北部最大潮差变小、南部最大潮差增大的格局,壅水作用导致人工岛内部水道潮差变化最为明显,最大潮差变化可达0.047 m。
(4)人工岛建设直接占据了龙口湾海域面积,导致其纳潮量明显减小。人工岛建设导致龙口湾水交换率整体减小,呈现出南部和北部增大、人工岛北侧以及内部水道减小的特征,人工岛造成的水动力环境的改变是影响水交换率变化的主要原因。
(5)人工岛建设显著改变了龙口湾水深地形及海湾形态,导致龙口湾内纳潮量减小、潮流、波浪以及水交换等水动力条件普遍减弱,是引起龙口湾水动力条件变化的根本因素。
-
图 1 北大西洋极地熊岛海槽发现冷泉泄漏点和相应的似陨石坑地貌
三维测深图结合二维地震剖面显示沉积物中气体存在(相位反转反射特征以及气烟囱),棕色线指示断层[14]。
Figure 1. Cold seep leaks and corresponding crater-like landforms found in the North Atlantic polar Bear Island Trough
3D bathymetry combined with 2D seismic profiles showing gas presence in sediments (phase-reversed reflection and gas chimneys), Faults are indicated by brown lines [14].
图 2 东西伯利亚陆架区海水中溶解甲烷的含量、分布及海气通量[64]
a. 观测站位位置, b. 底水中甲烷的含量与分布, c. 表层水中甲烷的含量与分布, d. 海-气甲烷通量。
Figure 2. Content, distribution and air-sea fluxes of dissolved methane in seawater on the East Siberian shelf[64]
a. The location of the observation station, b. The content and distribution of CH4 in bottom water, c. The content and distribution of CH4 in surface water, d. The sea-air CH4 flux[64].
图 4 斯瓦尔巴外海天然气水合物稳定带界线附近分布的冷泉活动探测图[22]
a. 黄色和红色圆点分别表示寒冷季节(2016年5月)和温暖季节(2012年8月)探测到的气体火焰异常位置,蓝色与白色实线分别指示以底水温度为1.5°C和3.0 °C模拟所得的GHSZ的界限;b. 黑色实线表示2016年5月航次调查的航迹线; c. 研究区位置概览。
Figure 4. Cold seep activity near the boundary of GHSZ off Svalbard[22]
a. The yellow and red dots indicate the abnormal position of gas flare detected in cold season (May, 2016) and warm season (August, 2012), respectively, the blue and white solid lines indicate the bounds of the GHSZ simulated at bottom water temperatures of 1.5 and 3.0 °C, respectively; b. the solid black line represents the flight path of the May 2016 voyage survey; c. general map of the study area.
图 6 利用回声探测获得的泥火山MV1处气体释放羽状流成像[96]
数据于2011年11月11日在24小时内采集。每个分图的左上角显示的是调查船通过泥火山顶部的时间,表明气体释放强度是随时间变化的。
Figure 6. The gas plume images of a echo sounder over the mud volcano MV1 [96]
Data collected within 24 hours on november11, 2011. The top left corner of each illustration shows the moment the expedition ship passed the top of the mud volcano, indicating that the intensity of the gas release varies with time.
-
[1] Reeburgh W S. Oceanic methane biogeochemistry [J]. Chemical Reviews, 2007, 107(2): 486-513. doi: 10.1021/cr050362v
[2] Dickens G R, Castillo M M, Walker J C. A blast of gas in the latest Paleocene: simulating first-order effects of massive dissociation of oceanic methane hydrate [J]. Geology, 1997, 25(3): 259-262. doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1997)025<0259:ABOGIT>2.3.CO;2
[3] Kennett J P, Cannariato K G, Hendy I L, et al. Carbon isotopic evidence for methane hydrate instability during Quaternary interstadials [J]. Science, 2000, 288(5463): 128-133. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5463.128
[4] Kennett J P, Cannariato K G, Hendy I L, et al. Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change: The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis[M]. Washington: American Geophysical Union, 2003.
[5] Ruppel C D, Kessler J D. The interaction of climate change and methane hydrates [J]. Reviews of Geophysics, 2017, 55(1): 126-168. doi: 10.1002/2016RG000534
[6] Boetius A, Wenzhöfer F. Seafloor oxygen consumption fuelled by methane from cold seeps [J]. Nature Geoscience, 2013, 6(9): 725-734. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1926
[7] 蔡峰, 吴能友, 闫桂京, 等. 海洋浅表层天然气水合物成藏特征[J]. 海洋地质前沿, 2020, 36(9):73-78 doi: 10.16028/j.1009-2722.2020.117 CAI Feng, WU Nengyou, YAN Guijing, et al. Characteristics of shallow gas hydrates accumulation in the sea [J]. Marine Geology Frontiers, 2020, 36(9): 73-78. doi: 10.16028/j.1009-2722.2020.117
[8] 孙治雷, 何拥军, 李军, 等. 海洋环境中甲烷厌氧氧化机理及环境效应[J]. 地球科学进展, 2012, 27(11):1262-1273 SUN Zhilei, HE Yongjun, LI Jun, et al. Progress and environmental effect in seafloor anaerobic oxidation of methane [J]. Advances in Earth Science, 2012, 27(11): 1262-1273.
[9] McIver R D. Gas hydrate[M]//Meyer R F, Olson C. Long-Term Energy Resources. Boston: Pitman, 1981: 713-726.
[10] Talukder A R. Review of submarine cold seep plumbing systems: leakage to seepage and venting [J]. Terra Nova, 2012, 24(4): 255-272. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.2012.01066.x
[11] Reay D S, Smith P, Christensen T R, et al. Methane and global environmental change [J]. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2018, 43: 165-192. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030154
[12] German C R, Seyfried Jr W E. Hydrothermal processes[M]//Holland H D, Turekian K K. Treatise on Geochemistry. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2014: 191-233.
[13] Waage M, Portnov A, Serov P, et al. Geological controls on fluid flow and gas hydrate pingo development on the Barents Sea margin [J]. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2019, 20(2): 630-650. doi: 10.1029/2018GC007930
[14] Andreassen K, Hubbard A, Winsborrow M, et al. Massive blow-out craters formed by hydrate-controlled methane expulsion from the Arctic seafloor [J]. Science, 2017, 356(6341): 948-953. doi: 10.1126/science.aal4500
[15] Solomon E A, Kastner M, MacDonald I R, et al. Considerable methane fluxes to the atmosphere from hydrocarbon seeps in the Gulf of Mexico [J]. Nature Geoscience, 2009, 2(8): 561-565. doi: 10.1038/ngeo574
[16] Shakhova N, Semiletov I, Leifer I, et al. Ebullition and storm-induced methane release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf [J]. Nature Geoscience, 2014, 7: 64-70. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2007
[17] Freire A F M, Matsumoto R, Akiba F. Geochemical analysis as a complementary tool to estimate the uplift of sediments caused by shallow gas hydrates in mounds at the seafloor of joetsu basin, eastern margin of the Japan Sea [J]. Journal of Geological Research, 2012, 2012: 839840.
[18] Tréhu A M, Flemings P B, Bangs N L, et al. Feeding methane vents and gas hydrate deposits at south Hydrate Ridge [J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2004, 31(23): L23310.
[19] Xu W Y, Germanovich L N. Excess pore pressure resulting from methane hydrate dissociation in marine sediments: a theoretical approach [J]. Journal of Geophysical Research:Solid Earth, 2006, 111(B1): B01104. doi: 10.1029/2004JB003600
[20] Fischer D, Mogollón J M, Strasser M, et al. Subduction zone earthquake as potential trigger of submarine hydrocarbon seepage [J]. Nature Geoscience, 2013, 6(8): 647-651. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1886
[21] Boles J R, Clark J F, Leifer I, et al. Temporal variation in natural methane seep rate due to tides, Coal Oil Point area, California [J]. Journal of Geophysical Research:Oceans, 2001, 106(C11): 27077-27086. doi: 10.1029/2000JC000774
[22] Ferré B, Jansson P G, Moser M, et al. Reduced methane seepage from Arctic sediments during cold bottom-water conditions [J]. Nature Geoscience, 2020, 13(2): 144-148. doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0515-3
[23] 苏明, 沙志彬, 匡增桂, 等. 海底峡谷侵蚀-沉积作用与天然气水合物成藏[J]. 现代地质, 2015, 29(1):155-162 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8527.2015.01.019 SU Ming, SHA Zhibin, KUANG Zenggui, et al. Erosion and sedimentation of the submarine canyons and the relationship with gas hydrate accumulation [J]. Geoscience, 2015, 29(1): 155-162. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8527.2015.01.019
[24] Paull C K, Schlining B, Ussler III W, et al. Distribution of chemosynthetic biological communities in Monterey Bay, California [J]. Geology, 2005, 33(2): 85-88. doi: 10.1130/G20927.1
[25] 韩喜球, 杨克红, 黄永样. 南海东沙东北冷泉流体的来源和性质: 来自烟囱状冷泉碳酸盐岩的证据[J]. 科学通报, 2013, 58(30):3689-3697 doi: 10.1007/s11434-013-5819-x HAN Xiqiu, YANG Kehong, HUANG Yongxiang. Origin and nature of cold seep in northeastern Dongsha area, South China Sea: evidence from chimney-like seep carbonates [J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2013, 58(30): 3689-3697. doi: 10.1007/s11434-013-5819-x
[26] Tryon M D, Brown K M, Torres M E, et al. Measurements of transience and downward fluid flow near episodic methane gas vents, Hydrate Ridge, Cascadia [J]. Geology, 1999, 27(12): 1075-1078. doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<1075:MOTADF>2.3.CO;2
[27] Niemann H, Lösekann T, De Beer D, et al. Novel microbial communities of the Haakon Mosby mud volcano and their role as a methane sink [J]. Nature, 2006, 443(7113): 854-858. doi: 10.1038/nature05227
[28] Alperin M, Hoehler T. The ongoing mystery of sea-floor methane [J]. Science, 2010, 329(5989): 288-289. doi: 10.1126/science.1189966
[29] Beal E J, House C H, Orphan V J. Manganese-and iron-dependent marine methane oxidation [J]. Science, 2009, 325(5937): 184-187. doi: 10.1126/science.1169984
[30] Egger M, Rasigraf O, Sapart C J, et al. Iron-mediated anaerobic oxidation of methane in brackish coastal sediments [J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2015, 49(1): 277-283.
[31] Sun Z L, Wu N Y, Cao H, et al. Hydrothermal metal supplies enhance the benthic methane filter in oceans: an example from the Okinawa Trough [J]. Chemical Geology, 2019, 525: 190-209. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2019.07.025
[32] Xie R, Wu D D, Liu J, et al. Geochemical evidence of metal-driven anaerobic oxidation of methane in the Shenhu area, the South China Sea [J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16(19): 3559. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193559
[33] Valentine D L. Emerging topics in marine methane biogeochemistr-y [J]. Annual Review of Marine Science, 2011, 3: 147-171. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-120709-142734
[34] Pohlman J W, Riedel M, Bauer J E, et al. Anaerobic methane oxidation in low-organic content methane seep sediments [J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2013, 108: 184-201. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2013.01.022
[35] Luff R, Wallmann K. Fluid flow, methane fluxes, carbonate precipitation and biogeochemical turnover in gas hydrate-bearing sediments at hydrate ridge, Cascadia Margin: numerical modeling and mass balances [J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2003, 67(18): 3403-3421. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7037(03)00127-3
[36] Karaca D, Hensen C, Wallmann K. Controls on authigenic carbonate precipitation at cold seeps along the convergent margin off Costa Rica [J]. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2010, 11(8): Q08S27.
[37] Wallmann K, Drews M, Aloisi G, et al. Methane discharge into the Black Sea and the global ocean via fluid flow through submarine mud volcanoes [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2006, 248(1-2): 545-560. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2006.06.026
[38] Martens C S, Val Klump J. Biogeochemical cycling in an organic-rich coastal marine basin–I. Methane sediment-water exchange processes [J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1980, 44(3): 471-490. doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(80)90045-9
[39] Ransom B, Bennett R H, Baerwald R, et al. In situ conditions and interactions between microbes and minerals in fine-grained marine sediments: a TEM microfabric perspective [J]. American Mineralogist, 1999, 84(1-2): 183-192. doi: 10.2138/am-1999-1-220
[40] Dale A W, Van Cappellen P, Aguilera D R, et al. Methane efflux from marine sediments in passive and active margins: estimations from bioenergetic reaction–transport simulations [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2008, 265(3-4): 329-344. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2007.09.026
[41] Boudreau B P, Ruddick B R. On a reactive continuum representation of organic matter diagenesis [J]. American Journal of Science, 1991, 291(5): 507-538. doi: 10.2475/ajs.291.5.507
[42] Van Cappellen P, Wang Y F. Cycling of iron and manganese in surface sediments; a general theory for the coupled transport and reaction of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, iron, and manganese [J]. American Journal of Science, 1996, 296(3): 197-243. doi: 10.2475/ajs.296.3.197
[43] Nauhaus K, Boetius A, Krüger M, et al. In vitro demonstration of anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to sulphate reduction in sediment from a marine gas hydrate area [J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2002, 4(5): 296-305. doi: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00299.x
[44] Riedinger N, Pfeifer K, Kasten S, et al. Diagenetic alteration of magnetic signals by anaerobic oxidation of methane related to a change in sedimentation rate [J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2005, 69(16): 4117-4126. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2005.02.004
[45] Gardiner B S, Boudreau B P, Johnson B D. Growth of disk-shaped bubbles in sediments [J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2003, 67(8): 1485-1494. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7037(02)01072-4
[46] Wegener G, Knittel K, Bohrmann G, et al. Benthic deep-sea life associated with asphaltic hydrocarbon emissions in the Southern gulf of mexico[M]//Teske A, Carvalho V. Marine Hydrocarbon Seeps. Cham: Springer, 2020: 101-123.
[47] Dong X Y, Greening C, Rattray J E, et al. Metabolic potential of uncultured bacteria and archaea associated with petroleum seepage in deep-sea sediments [J]. Nature Communications, 2019, 10: 1816. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09747-0
[48] Leonte M, Kessler J D, Kellermann M Y, et al. Rapid rates of aerobic methane oxidation at the feather edge of gas hydrate stability in the waters of Hudson Canyon, US Atlantic margin [J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2017, 204: 375-387. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2017.01.009
[49] Sauter E J, Muyakshin S I, Charlou J L, et al. Methane discharge from a deep-sea submarine mud volcano into the upper water column by gas hydrate-coated methane bubbles [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2006, 243(3-4): 354-365. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2006.01.041
[50] Veloso‐Alarcón M E, Jansson P, De Batist M, et al. Variability of acoustically evidenced methane bubble emissions offshore western Svalbard [J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2019, 46(15): 9072-9081. doi: 10.1029/2019GL082750
[51] Crespo-Medina M, Meile C D, Hunter K S, et al. The rise and fall of methanotrophy following a deepwater oil-well blowout [J]. Nature Geoscience, 2014, 7(6): 423-427. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2156
[52] Steinle L, Graves C A, Treude T, et al. Water column methanotrophy controlled by a rapid oceanographic switch [J]. Nature Geoscience, 2015, 8(5): 378-382. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2420
[53] Römer M, Wenau S, Mau S, et al. Assessing marine gas emission activity and contribution to the atmospheric methane inventory: a multidisciplinary approach from the dutch dogger bank seep area (north sea) [J]. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2017, 18(7): 2617-2633. doi: 10.1002/2017GC006995
[54] Biastoch A, Treude T, Rüpke L H, et al. Rising arctic ocean temperatures cause gas hydrate destabilization and ocean acidification [J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2011, 38(8): L08602. doi: 10.1029/2011GL047222
[55] Reeburgh W S, Ward B B, Whalen S C, et al. Black sea methane geochemistry [J]. Deep Sea Research Part A. Oceanographic Research Papers, 1991, 38(S2): S1189-S1210.
[56] Mau S, Tu T H, Becker M, et al. Methane seeps and independent methane plumes in the South China Sea offshore Taiwan [J]. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2020, 7: 543. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00543
[57] Fu X, Waite W F, Ruppel C D. Hydrate formation on marine seep bubbles and the implications for water column methane dissolution [J]. Journal of Geophysical Research:Oceans, 2021, 126(9): e2021JC017363.
[58] Seelig H D, Hoehn A, Stodieck L S, et al. The assessment of leaf water content using leaf reflectance ratios in the visible, near‐, and short‐wave‐infrared [J]. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2008, 29(13): 3701-3713. doi: 10.1080/01431160701772500
[59] Michel A P M, Preston V L, Fauria K E, et al. Observations of shallow methane bubble emissions from Cascadia Margin [J]. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2021, 9: 613234. doi: 10.3389/feart.2021.613234
[60] Yamazaki T, Nakano Y, Monoe D, et al. A model analysis of methane plume behavior in an ocean water column[C]//Proceedings of the 16th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. San Francisco: SPE, 2006.
[61] Graves C A, Steinle L, Rehder G, et al. Fluxes and fate of dissolved methane released at the seafloor at the landward limit of the gas hydrate stability zone offshore western Svalbard [J]. Journal of Geophysical Research:Oceans, 2015, 120(9): 6185-6201. doi: 10.1002/2015JC011084
[62] Nihous G C, Masutani S M. Notes on the dissolution rate of gas hydrates in undersaturated water [J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 2006, 61(23): 7827-7830. doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2005.09.010
[63] Bange H W, Bartell U H, Rapsomanikis S, et al. Methane in the baltic and north seas and a reassessment of the marine emissions of methane [J]. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 1994, 8(4): 465-480. doi: 10.1029/94GB02181
[64] Shakhova N, Semiletov I, Salyuk A, et al. Extensive methane venting to the atmosphere from sediments of the east siberian arctic shelf [J]. Science, 2010, 327(5970): 1246-1250. doi: 10.1126/science.1182221
[65] 曹兴朋, 张桂玲, 马啸, 等. 春季东、黄海溶解甲烷的分布和海气交换通量[J]. 环境科学, 2013, 34(7):2565-2573 doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.2013.07.027 CAO Xingpeng, ZHANG Guiling, MA Xiao, et al. Distribution and air-sea fluxes of methane in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea in the spring [J]. Environmental Science, 2013, 34(7): 2565-2573. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.2013.07.027
[66] 陈多福, 陈先沛, 陈光谦. 冷泉流体沉积碳酸盐岩的地质地球化学特征[J]. 沉积学报, 2002, 20(1):34-40 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0550.2002.01.007 CHEN Duofu, CHEN Xianpei, CHEN Guangqian. Geology and geochemistry of cold seepage and venting-related carbonates [J]. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2002, 20(1): 34-40. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0550.2002.01.007
[67] Feng D, Qiu J W, Hu Y, et al. Cold seep systems in the South China Sea: an overview [J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 2018, 168: 3-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2018.09.021
[68] 阎贫, 王彦林, 郑红波, 等. 东沙群岛西南海区泥火山的地球物理特征[J]. 海洋学报, 2014, 36(7):142-148 YAN Pin, WANG Yanlin, ZHENG Hongbo, et al. Geophysical features of mud volcanoes in the waters southwest of Dongsha Islands [J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2014, 36(7): 142-148.
[69] Liang Q Y, Hu Y, Feng D, et al. Authigenic carbonates from newly discovered active cold seeps on the northwestern slope of the South China Sea: constraints on fluid sources, formation environments, and seepage dynamics [J]. Deep Sea Research Part I:Oceanographic Research Papers, 2017, 124: 31-41. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2017.04.015
[70] Xu H C, Du M R, Li J T, et al. Spatial distribution of seepages and associated biological communities within Haima cold seep field, South China Sea [J]. Journal of Sea Research, 2020, 165: 101957. doi: 10.1016/j.seares.2020.101957
[71] Sun Q L, Wu S G, Cartwright J, et al. Shallow gas and focused fluid flow systems in the Pearl River Mouth Basin, northern South China Sea [J]. Marine Geology, 2012, 315-318: 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2012.05.003
[72] Sun Q L, Wu S G, Cartwright J, et al. Focused fluid flow systems of the Zhongjiannan Basin and Guangle Uplift, South China Sea [J]. Basin Research, 2013, 25(1): 97-111. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2117.2012.00551.x
[73] Chen J X, Song H B, Guan Y X, et al. Morphologies, classification and genesis of pockmarks, mud volcanoes and associated fluid escape features in the northern Zhongjiannan Basin, South China Sea [J]. Deep Sea Research Part II:Topical Studies in Oceanography, 2015, 122: 106-117. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.11.007
[74] Chen J X, Song H B, Guan Y X, et al. Geological and oceanographic controls on seabed fluid escape structures in the northern Zhongjiannan Basin, South China Sea [J]. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 2018, 168: 38-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2018.04.027
[75] Guan H X, Feng D, Wu N Y, et al. Methane seepage intensities traced by biomarker patterns in authigenic carbonates from the South China Sea [J]. Organic Geochemistry, 2016, 91: 109-119. doi: 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2015.11.007
[76] Zhang X, Du Z F, Luan Z D, et al. In situ Raman detection of gas hydrates exposed on the seafloor of the South China Sea [J]. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2017, 18(10): 3700-3713. doi: 10.1002/2017GC006987
[77] Chen F, Hu Y, Feng D, et al. Evidence of intense methane seepages from molybdenum enrichments in gas hydrate-bearing sediments of the northern South China Sea [J]. Chemical Geology, 2016, 443: 173-181. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.09.029
[78] Deng Y N, Chen F, Hu Y, et al. Methane seepage patterns during the middle Pleistocene inferred from molybdenum enrichments of seep carbonates in the South China Sea [J]. Ore Geology Reviews, 2020, 125: 103701. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2020.103701
[79] Li N, Yang X Q, Peckmann J, et al. Persistent oxygen depletion of bottom waters caused by methane seepage: evidence from the South China Sea [J]. Ore Geology Reviews, 2021, 129: 103949. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2020.103949
[80] Liu S, Feng X L, Feng Z Q, et al. Geochemical evidence of methane seepage in the sediments of the qiongdongnan basin, South China Sea [J]. Chemical Geology, 2020, 543: 119588. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.119588
[81] Jin M, Feng D, Huang K, et al. Behavior of Mg isotopes during precipitation of methane-derived carbonate: evidence from tubular seep carbonates from the South China Sea [J]. Chemical Geology, 2021, 567: 120101. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2021.120101
[82] Berndt C, Feseker T, Treude T, et al. Temporal constraints on hydrate-controlled methane seepage off Svalbard [J]. Science, 2014, 343(6168): 284-287. doi: 10.1126/science.1246298
[83] 吴能友, 孙治雷, 卢建国, 等. 冲绳海槽海底冷泉-热液系统相互作用[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 2019, 39(5):23-35 doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2019070102 WU Nengyou, SUN Zhilei, LU Jianguo, et al. Interaction between seafloor cold seeps and adjacent hydrothermal activities in the Okinawa Trough [J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology, 2019, 39(5): 23-35. doi: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2019070102
[84] Wu N Y, Xu C L, Li A, et al. Oceanic carbon cycle in a symbiotic zone between hydrothermal vents and cold seeps in the Okinawa Trough [J]. Geosystems and Geoenvironment, 2022, 1(3): 100059. doi: 10.1016/j.geogeo.2022.100059
[85] Cao H, Sun Z L, Wu N Y, et al. Mineralogical and geochemical records of seafloor cold seepage history in the northern Okinawa Trough, East China Sea [J]. Deep Sea Research Part I:Oceanographic Research Papers, 2020, 155: 103165. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2019.103165
[86] Li A, Cai F, Wu N, et al. Structural controls on widespread methane seeps in the back-arc basin of the Mid-Okinawa Trough [J]. Ore Geology Reviews, 2021, 129: 103950. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2020.103950
[87] Sun Z L, Li J, Huang W, et al. Generation of hydrothermal Fe-Si oxyhydroxide deposit on the Southwest Indian Ridge and its implication for the origin of ancient banded iron [J]. Journal of Geophysical Research:Biogeosciences, 2015, 120(1): 187-203. doi: 10.1002/2014JG002764
[88] Lin G M, Lu J G, Sun Z L, et al. Characterization of tissue-associated bacterial community of two Bathymodiolus species from the adjacent cold seep and hydrothermal vent environments [J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 796: 149046. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149046
[89] Zhang X R, Sun Z L, Fan D J, et al. Compositional characteristics and sources of DIC and DOC in seawater of the Okinawa Trough, East China Sea [J]. Continental Shelf Research, 2019, 174: 108-117. doi: 10.1016/j.csr.2018.12.014
[90] Xu C L, Wu N Y, Sun Z L, et al. Assessing methane cycling in the seep sediments of the mid-Okinawa Trough: insights from pore-water geochemistry and numerical modeling [J]. Ore Geology Reviews, 2021, 129: 103909. doi: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2020.103909
[91] Judd A, Hovland M. Seabed Fluid Flow: the Impact on Geology, Biology and the Marine Environment[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[92] 党宏月, 李嘉. 变化海洋中的甲烷气候临爆点潜力及生成悖论[J]. 中国科学:地球科学, 2018, 61(12):1714-1727 doi: 10.1007/s11430-017-9265-y DANG Hongyue, LI Jia. Climate tipping-point potential and paradoxical production of methane in a changing ocean [J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 2018, 61(12): 1714-1727. doi: 10.1007/s11430-017-9265-y
[93] Daines S J, Lenton T M. The effect of widespread early aerobic marine ecosystems on methane cycling and the Great Oxidation [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2016, 434: 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2015.11.021
[94] Yung Y L, Chen P. Methane on Mars [J]. Astrobiology & Outreach, 2015, 3(1): 1000125.
[95] 李超伦, 李富超. 深海极端环境与生命过程研究现状与对策[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2016, 31(12):1302-1307 doi: 10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.2016.12.003 LI Chaolun, LI Fuchao. Extreme environment and life process in deep-sea: research status and strategies [J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2016, 31(12): 1302-1307. doi: 10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.2016.12.003
[96] Hsu S K, Wang S Y, Liao Y C, et al. Tide-modulated gas emissions and tremors off SW Taiwan [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2013, 369-370: 98-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2013.03.013
[97] 邸鹏飞, 陈庆华, 陈多福. 海底冷泉渗漏气体流量原位在线测量技术研究[J]. 热带海洋学报, 2012, 31(5):83-87 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5470.2012.05.012 DI Pengfei, CHEN Qinghua, CHEN Duofu. In situ on-line measuring device of gas seeping flux at marine seep sites and experimental study [J]. Journal of Tropical Oceanography, 2012, 31(5): 83-87. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5470.2012.05.012
-
期刊类型引用(9)
1. 佀同浩,褚宏宪,孙菲菲,白大鹏,朱龙海,胡日军,林超然. 曹妃甸南部海域表层沉积物侵蚀特征. 海洋地质前沿. 2025(02): 92-104 . 百度学术
2. 王超,姜胜辉,王世臣,李春川. 山东裕龙岛跨河道工程对沉积动力环境影响研究. 海洋地质与第四纪地质. 2024(01): 191-202 . 本站查看
3. 纪超,姜奇,马殿光,吕彪,周俊伟. 人工岛与多工程影响下的潮流动力响应特征. 科学技术与工程. 2024(05): 1837-1847 . 百度学术
4. 韩慧慧,高飞,丁咚,马乐. 围填海工程对三门湾纳潮量和水交换的影响. 海洋地质前沿. 2024(05): 40-50 . 百度学术
5. 朱金龙,孙伟,陈少伟,冯银银,魏潇,刘宁,徐艳东,王万冠,李姿墨. 岸线变迁对莱州湾纳潮量和水交换的影响研究. 海洋湖沼通报. 2024(03): 12-18 . 百度学术
6. 杨超,朱龙海,张晓东. 基于大量卫星图像研究莱州湾东北部界河海滩近40年的海岸线演变. 海洋学报. 2024(12): 13-25 . 百度学术
7. 聂超辉,吴园园,朱金龙,徐艳东,杜鹏,王菡. 莱州湾西南部岸线变迁对海域水动力影响的数值研究. 海洋环境科学. 2023(02): 228-236 . 百度学术
8. 郭杨子,王世宁,曹晓航. 围堤工程中潮流对抛石漂移的影响研究. 中国港湾建设. 2023(07): 23-29 . 百度学术
9. 张一鸣. 人类活动对沉积环境的影响研究综述. 城市地质. 2022(02): 184-192 . 百度学术
其他类型引用(2)