SLOPE CONFIGURATION FACE TO THE PHYSIC-HIDRIC BEHAVIOR OF AN DISTROPHIC RED ARGISSOIL IN THE DISTRICT OF PAINS/SANTA MARIA, RS.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X13165Keywords:
Pedological cover, Slope, Physic-hidric parametersAbstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X13165
The study of slope, while a category of relief, has assumed importance since Tricart’s work in 1957 when he stated the slope as the main relief element for most regions, assuming then as an important relief subject for humankind. Trying to characterize the slope conformation, it was obtained data from field and laboratory labor, from a distrophic RED ARGISSOIL located in the district of Pains/ Santa Maria, RS, Brazil, than, considered to explain the slope shape due to the exfiltration process and underground water flow. The general objective was to explain the slope shape due to the physical-hidric behavior of each diagnostic horizon of the soil profile. The specific objectives were (1) to analyze physical-hidric parameters of the diagnostic horizons such as particle size (granulometric) analyzes, total porosity, bulk density, hydraulic conductivity and physical soil resistance to penetration, and, (2) identify the hydric underground flow lines which regulates the exfiltration and the relief conformation in the slope profile. The physic-hidric parameters allowed identify the exfiltration process present in E and Bf pedogenetic horizons in the Bt pedogenetic horizon interface. That results a more pronounced concavity in the inferior third portion of the slope, face a collapse leaded by this exfiltration. Therefore, the physic-hidric characterization of the diagnostic horizons permitted to locate in the topossequence the sub superficial hydric tendency, leading to understand the dynamic of slope shape evolution.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
