ALBERT

Description: The three-dimensional (3-D) reflection-seismic data set ISO-89 3D was recorded near the deep borehole KTB in southeastern Germany. Reflections from the SE1 reflector and from the top of the Erbendorf body (EB) in the upper crystalline crust can be identified in 5–10% of the single-shot sections. The reflectors have been first identified in previous studies of stacked and migrated seismic data. In this paper the velocity and density variations of these two structures are estimated in a new way using true amplitude single-shot (vibroseis) data. The method uses the direct wave Pg as a reference phase and models the amplitude ratios of the SE1 and EB reflections to Pg. Modeling in this paper uses a combination of ray theory and the reflectivity method, and the SE1 and the top of the EB are assumed to be obliquely oriented 1-D structures. Pg modeling shows that a depth-dependent velocity function within the uppermost crystalline basement explains the amplitudes and travel times of this phase with sufficient accuracy. The largest observed amplitude ratios SE1/Pg and EB/Pg are explained by laminated models with strong velocity contrasts and with reflection coefficients of magnitude 0.1–0.2 (SE1) and 0.05–0.15 (EB). The total thickness of the reflecting zones is less than ∼300 m. Pg amplitude modeling requires low Qp factors (〈100) to a depth of ∼1 km, whereas at larger depths, values of several hundred are necessary to keep the SE1 and EB velocity contrasts in realistic ranges. Both reflectors can be interpreted as cataclastic zones. For the SE1 this interpretation agrees with the view that it is a steeply dipping thrust fault which continues the tectonic Franconian Lineament into the upper crust. We assume that the EB is the fractured top of a high-velocity zone at depths below ∼10 km, known from earlier wide-angle measurements. Both reflectors have large weakly reflecting or nonreflecting parts. The SE1 is nonreflecting at the intersection with the KTB borehole.

Description: Movements of animals provisioning offspring by central place foraging extend from short, highly local trips where food is brought back essentially unchanged from its normal condition to extensive interseasonal movement where the offspring are nourished from body reserves built up during the adult's absence from the breeding site. Here, appropriate strategies for maximizing lifetime reproductive success depend on the abundance and location of prey in relation to breeding sites and the energetics and speed of travel of the animal. Magellanic Penguins Spheniscus magellanicus undertake central place movements that are particularly variable during the incubation period; trips may last from a single day to over three weeks depending on colony locality. We reasoned that site-specific variability in prey distribution and abundance is responsible for this. Remote-sensing systems attached to 92 penguins from six different colonies over the species distributional range over the Patagonian Shelf were used to determine space use and foraging patterns in an attempt to understand the observed patterns. Birds in the north and south of the latitudinal range were essentially monophagic, feeding primarily on anchovies Engraulis anchoita and sprats Sprattus fuegensis, respectively, both species that are to be found relatively close to the colonies. Penguins in the center of the distributional range, where these pelagic school fish prey are essentially absent at that time of the year, traveled either north or south, to the same regions utilized by their conspecifics, presumably to exploit the same prey. A simple model is used to clarify patterns and can be used to predict which movement strategy is likely to be best according to colony location. During chick rearing, southerly movement of anchovies and northerly movement of sprats mean that Magellanic Penguins in the center of the distributional range may benefit, although the abundance of these fish is considered to be less than that closer to the Magellanic Penguin range limits. The extensive time involved in the foraging trips during incubation coupled with the postulated poorer prey conditions during the chick-rearing phase may help explain why Magellanic Penguin colony sizes in the center of the range are not elevated.