Morfologia da Rede de Drenagem do Rio Cascavel e sua Potencial Interação Hidrossedimentar com o Ambiente Urbano de Guarapuava, Pr: Notas Preliminares
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X9372Abstract
O objetivo deste trabalho foi analisar algumas características naturais da rede de drenagem do Rio Cascavel, verificando as possíveis implicações para o comportamento hidrossedimentar dos canais face à ocupação urbana. Os dados levantados envolveram o arranjo espacial da drenagem, perfis longitudinais e índices de declividade dos canais . A assimetria da rede do Rio Cascavel condiciona maior input hidrológico na margem esquerda, justamente a mais urbanizada. Os efeitos potenciais previstos são: (1) maior contribuição aos fluxos de enchente no Rio Cascavel a partir dos afluentes urbanos e (2) aumento do tempo de recessão dos hidrogramas a jusante da área urbana, como resposta cumulativa ao escoamento diferenciado das sub-bacias urbanas e das sub-bacias rurais de montante. Os perfis longitudinais dos rios apresentam-se escalonados. Trechos com índice de declividade maior ou menor que o índice geral de determinado rio, são interpretados como trechos sujeitos a erosão ou a sedimentação, respectivamente. Em conjunto os índices de declividade indicam que os sedimentos produzidos na área urbana têm baixa condição de estoque nos canais, com exceção do Arroio da Chácara. As implicações potenciais seriam: (1) a rápida transferência dos sedimentos para os trechos de desembocadura e (2) condicionamentos erosivos de canais, intensificados dentro da área urbana pelo aumento dos fluxos superficiais.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.
