轮藻居群的种内变异与生物地层对比

doi:10.13745/j.esf.sf.2020.6.10

地学前缘 ›› 2020, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (6): 234-240.DOI: 10.13745/j.esf.sf.2020.6.10

轮藻居群的种内变异与生物地层对比

李莎¹^,²(), 王启飞², 张海春¹^,², 万晓樵³

1.中国科学院南京地质古生物研究所现代古生物学和地层学国家重点实验室, 江苏南京 210008
2.中国科学院南京地质古生物研究所中国科学院生物演化与环境卓越创新中心, 江苏南京 210008
3.中国地质大学(北京) 生物地质与环境地质国家重点实验室, 北京 100083

收稿日期:2020-03-18 修回日期:2020-05-26 出版日期:2020-11-02 发布日期:2020-11-02
作者简介:李莎(1988—),女,助理研究员,主要从事古生物学与地层学研究。E-mail: shali@nigpas.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(41972018);国家自然科学基金项目(41688103);中国科学院战略性先导科技专项项目(B类)(XDB26000000);中国地质调查局(DD20190009)

Intraspecies variation and biostratigraphic correlation in charophyte population

LI Sha¹^,²(), WANG Qifei², ZHANG Haichun¹^,², WAN Xiaoqiao³

1. State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
2. Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment(CAS), Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
3. State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences(Beijing), Beijing 100083, China

Received:2020-03-18 Revised:2020-05-26 Online:2020-11-02 Published:2020-11-02

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

传统轮藻化石研究对中国白垩系-古近系地层界线划分起到了重要的作用,但是轮藻属种的洲际对比却难以实现,究其原因,主要是中国与国际分类学方法未统一,属种名称不一致所导致。前人通过对现生轮藻藏卵器形态发育的观察发现,一个轮藻种的藏卵器钙化程度的不同,会导致其螺旋细胞呈现由凹到凸的变化。文章介绍了以居群为单位的轮藻化石研究思路,居群内不同的藏卵器个体在形态上存在一定的差异, 但这些差异之间存在连续过渡的关系,并未出现明显的分异,我们将这些形态变化称为种内变异;种内形态分析可以对已建立的属种进行有效厘定,有助于中国与国际的轮藻化石居群进行对比。此外,轮藻生物地层学研究还需结合古生态学和古地理学分析,优先选择生态域广和地理分布范围广的分子进行生物带命名,有利于进行洲际地层对比。

关键词: 藏卵器, 形态分析, 种内变异, 古生态, 古地理

Abstract:

Traditional charophyte fossil studies indicated that these fossils played a significant role in the stratigraphic division of the Cretaceous/Paleocene boundary. However, the continental correlation of charophyte species is hard to carry out due to lack of a united taxonomy standard. According to previous studies on modern charophytes, the spiral cells of gyrogonites in one species showed changes from concave to convex due to different degrees of calcification. Therefore, the identification of charophyte fossil taxa based on populations was introduced. Gyrogonite polymorphism is often found in the population of one of the species. If the changes in characteristics are transitional, these different morphologies are called intraspecific variations. Studies of intraspecific variations could provide evidence for species determination and further biostratigraphic correlation between Chinese and international charophyte populations. Palaeoecology and palaeogeography are also important for studying charophyte biostratigraphy. Eurytopic and widely distributed species can be used to denominate biozones, which are beneficial to intercontinental stratigraphic correlation.

Key words: gyrogonite, morphological analysis, intraspecific variation, palaeoecology, palaeogeography

中图分类号:

Q913.84
P52

李莎, 王启飞, 张海春, 万晓樵. 轮藻居群的种内变异与生物地层对比[J]. 地学前缘, 2020, 27(6): 234-240.

LI Sha, WANG Qifei, ZHANG Haichun, WAN Xiaoqiao. Intraspecies variation and biostratigraphic correlation in charophyte population[J]. Earth Science Frontiers, 2020, 27(6): 234-240.

图/表 4

图1 轮藻化石测量参数图 LPA—极轴最大长度;LED—赤道最大宽度;AND—顶点到赤道轴的距离;A—长轴中线计数方法;B—斜轴计数方法。

Fig.1 The gyrogonite measurement parameters

图2 P.varians的生物特征图(共98枚化石样本),来自山东平邑盆地葛家庄剖面(据文献[14]修改)

Fig.2 Biometric data for P.varians (98 gyrogonites) from the Gejiazhuang section of the Pingyi Basin, Shandong Province. Modified from [14].

图3 轮藻化石的种内变异(据文献[14,18]修改) A-J—P.varians;A-E—顶视;A,B—梅花形顶盖平;C—梅花形顶盖中等凸出;D,E—梅花形顶盖强烈凸出;F-J—侧视;F—螺旋细胞凹,无瘤状装饰;G,H—螺旋细胞平,时有不明显瘤状装饰,瘤不凸出;I,J—螺旋细胞凸,时有瘤状装饰,瘤凸出;K-R—M.gobica;K-N—侧视,黑框显示细胞中脊构造放大的部位(比例尺100 μm);O-R—细胞中脊构造放大图(比例尺20 μm);K,O—细胞中脊宽度细,线状;L,M,P,Q—细胞中脊宽度中等,占螺旋细胞宽度的1/3;N,R—细胞中脊宽度粗,占螺旋细胞宽度的1/2。

Fig.3 Intraspecific variations in charophyte fossils. Modified from [14,18].

图4 中国平邑盆地、松辽盆地、胶莱盆地及与欧洲阿格盆地坎潘期最晚期至丹麦期早期的Microchara cristata超带对比(据文献[27]修改)

Fig.4 Comparison of latest Campanian-early Danian Microchara cristata superzone among the Pingyi, Songliao and Jiaolai basins in China and further with the Ager Basin in Europe. Modified from [27].

参考文献 30

[1]	DEL CORTONA A, JACKSON C J, BUCCHINI F, et al. Neoproterozoic origin and multiple transitions to macroscopic growth in green seaweeds[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020, 117: 2551-2559.
[2]	NOWAK P, SCHUBERT H. Genetic variability of charophyte algae in the Baltic Sea area[J]. Botanica Marina, 2019, 62: 75-82. DOI URL
[3]	王振. 江汉盆地白垩纪轮藻类的研究兼论Porocharaceae和Characeae的分类[J]. 中国科学院南京地质古生物研究所集刊, 1978(9): 61-88.
[4]	王振. 江汉盆地早第三纪轮藻类[J]. 中国科学院南京地质古生物研究所集刊, 1978(9): 101-120.
[5]	黄仁金, 张捷芳. 广东三水盆地晚白垩世—早第三纪轮藻[J]. 中国科学院南京地质古生物研究所丛刊, 1984, 第9号:169-217.
[6]	王振, 卢辉楠, 赵传本. 松辽盆地及其邻区白垩纪轮藻类[M]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江科学技术出版社, 1985.
[7]	黄仁金. 广东南雄盆地白垩系与第三系界线及轮藻化石[J]. 古生物学报, 1988, 27: 457-474.
[8]	王启飞. 苏北盆地晚白垩世—始新世轮藻植物群[D]. 南京:中国科学院南京地质古生物研究所, 2004: 217.
[9]	SOULIÉ-MÄRSCHE I. Etude comparée de gyrogonites de Charophytes actuelles et fossiles et phylogénie des genres actuels[D]. Millau, France: Imprimerie des Tilleuls, 1989: 237.
[10]	SHA J. Ontogenetic variations of the Early Cretaceous non-marine bivalve Trigonioides (T.) heilongjiangensis and the concept of fossil species[J]. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 1992, 66(3/4): 241-264. DOI URL
[11]	王亚琼, 沙金庚, 彭博, 等. Ilyocypris bradyi的轮廓分析[J]. 微体古生物学报, 2011, 28(1): 119-126.
[12]	FEIST M, GRAMBAST-FESSARD N, GUESQUERLIN M, et al. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, Part B Protoctista 1, Volume 1: Charophyta[M]. Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas: The Geological Society of America, Inc. and the University of Kansas, 2005: 170.
[13]	SOULIE-MÄRSCHE I, GEMAYEL P, MASSIEUX M. Étude de la variationpopulationnelle d’une charophyte de l’Éocène Pyrénéen par analyses multidimensionnelles[J]. Geobios, 1991, 24(5): 537-548. DOI URL
[14]	LI S, WANG Q F, ZHANG H C, et al. Charophytes from the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition in the Pingyi Basin (Eastern China) and their Eurasian correlation[J]. Cretaceous Research, 2016, 59: 179-200. DOI URL
[15]	GARCÍA A. Charophyta: their use in paleolimnology[J]. Journal of Paleolimnology, 1994, 10(1): 43-52. DOI URL
[16]	SOULIÉ-MÄRSCHE I. Charophytes as lacustrine biomarkers during the quaternary in North Africa[J]. Journal of African Earth Sciences (and the Middle East), 1991, 12(1/2): 341-351. DOI URL
[17]	SANJUAN J, VICENTE A, FLOR-ARNAU N, et al. Effects of light and temperature on Chara vulgaris (Charophyceae) gyrogonite productivity and polymorphism-palaeoenvironmental implications[J]. Phycologia, 2017, 56(2): 204-212. DOI URL
[18]	LI S, WANG Q F, ZHANG H C, et al. Charophytes from the Cretaceous-Paleocene boundary in the Songliao Basin (north-eastern China): a Chinese biozonation and its calibration to the Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale[J]. Papers in Palaeontology, 2019, 5(1): 47-81. DOI URL
[19]	BUCAS M, SINKEVICIENE Z, KATARZYTE M, et al. How much can the occurrence and coverage of charophytes in an estuarine lagoon (Curonian Lagoon) be explained by environmental factors?[J]. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 2019, 216: 128-138. DOI URL
[20]	SINKEVICIENE Z, BUCAS M, ILGINE R, et al. Charophytes in the estuarine Curonian Lagoon: have the changes in diversity, abundance and distribution occurred since the late 1940s?[J]. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies, 2017, 46(2): 186-198. DOI URL
[21]	TISS L, TRABELSI K, KAMOUN F, et al. Middle Jurassic charophytes from southern Tunisia: implications on evolution and paleobiogeography[J]. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 2019, 263: 65-84. DOI URL
[22]	SANJUAN J, MARTÍN-CLOSAS C. Charophyte palaeoecology in the Upper Eocene of the Eastern Ebro basin (Catalonia, Spain). Biostratigraphic implications[J]. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2012, 365/366: 247-262. DOI URL
[23]	VICENTE A, MARTÍN-CLOSAS C. Lower Cretaceous charophytes from the Serrania de Cuenca, Iberian chain: taxonomy, biostratigraphy and palaeoecology[J]. Cretaceous Research, 2013, 40: 227-242. DOI URL
[24]	SANJUAN J, ALQUDAH M. Charophyte flora from the Miocene of Zahle (Beeka Valley, Lebanon). Biostratigraphic, palaeoenvironmental and palaeobiogeographical implications[J]. Geodiversitas, 2018, 40(2): 195-209. DOI URL
[25]	LI S, ZHANG H, WANG Q, et al. Early Cretaceous charophyte flora from the Chijinbao Formation in the Jiuquan Basin, Northwest China, and its stratigraphic and palaeoecological significance[J]. Botany Letters, 2018, 165: 11-22. DOI URL
[26]	LI S, WANG Q F, ZHANG H C. Charophytes from the Lower Cretaceous Xiagou Formation in the Jiuquan Basin (northwestern China) and their palaeogeographical significance[J]. Cretaceous Research, 2020, 105: 103940. DOI URL
[27]	LI S, WANG Q F, ZHANG H C, et al. Latest Campanian to Maastrichtian charophytes in the Jiaolai Basin (Eastern China)[J]. Cretaceous Research, 2019, 106: 104266. DOI URL
[28]	ZHANG L M, WANG C S, CAO K, et al. High elevation of Jiaolai Basin during the Late Cretaceous: implication for the coastal mountains along the East Asian margin[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2016, 456: 112-123. DOI URL
[29]	MOURONVAL J B, BAUDOUIN S, BOREL N, et al. Guide des Characées de France méditerranéenne[M]. Paris: Office national de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, 2015.
[30]	HRAFNSDOTTIR T, INGIMARSSON F, INGVASON H R, et al. New finds of charophytes in Iceland with an update on the distribution of the charophyte flora[J]. Nordic Journal of Botany, 2019, 37(5): 1-11.

轮藻居群的种内变异与生物地层对比

Intraspecies variation and biostratigraphic correlation in charophyte population

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 30

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	凌媛, 王永, 王淑贤, 孙青, 李海兵. 生物标志物在海洋和湖泊古生态系统和生产力重建中的应用[J]. 地学前缘, 2022, 29(2): 327-342.
[2]	万晓樵. 中—新生代有孔虫古地理对西藏特提斯演变的动态响应[J]. 地学前缘, 2020, 27(6): 116-127.
[3]	黄明立, 田坤烜, 史宇坤. 滇黔桂盆地早二叠世亚丁斯克期的沉积环境分异与䗴有孔虫响应[J]. 地学前缘, 2020, 27(6): 313-328.
[4]	韩瑶, 张传恒, 李利阳, 蒋先强, 刘子荟. 皖南前南华纪浅变质岩系的沉积地质特征及其构造古地理意义[J]. 地学前缘, 2020, 27(4): 282-293.
[5]	薛长军，吕古贤，高伟利，杨阳. 湘西花垣李梅矿田含矿层清虚洞期岩相古地理分析及成矿预测[J]. 地学前缘, 2017, 24(2): 159-175.
[6]	侯卫国，董海良，蒋宏忱，李高远，杨渐. 沉积物中古DNA在古生态、古环境和古气候研究中的应用[J]. 地学前缘, 2017, 24(2): 286-291.
[7]	刘少峰，王成善. 构造古地理重建与动力地形[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(6): 61-79.
[8]	汪啸风. 中国南方奥陶纪构造古地理及年代与生物地层的划分与对比[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(6): 253-267.
[9]	李军亮, 肖永军, 王大华, 林武. 柴达木盆地东部侏罗纪原型盆地恢复[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(5): 11-22.
[10]	毛凤军，刘若涵，刘邦. 尼日尔Termit盆地及其周缘晚白垩世古地理演化[J]. 地学前缘, 2016, 23(3): 186-197.
[11]	覃兆松,李坚,何伟相. 准同时岩相古地理图的制作新方法[J]. 地学前缘, 2015, 22(6): 136-147.
[12]	张光亚, 刘伟, 张磊, 于炳松, 李洪辉, 张宝民, 王黎栋. 塔里木克拉通寒武纪—奥陶纪原型盆地、岩相古地理与油气[J]. 地学前缘, 2015, 22(3): 269-276.
[13]	纵瑞文, 龚一鸣, 王国灿. 西准噶尔南部石炭纪地层层序及古地理演化[J]. 地学前缘, 2014, 21(2): 216-233.
[14]	胡宗全, 由伟丰, 李松, 张海清, 周小进, 杨帆. 中国早震旦世构造岩相古地理[J]. 地学前缘, 2013, 20(5): 248-254.
[15]	陈兴强，迟振卿,闫臻，王永，闵隆瑞，姚培毅，董进，姚杜琳. ^{华北泥河湾盆地郝家台地区的沉积相组合特征：以台儿沟东剖面为例}[J]. 地学前缘, 2012, 19(4): 227-238.