ANALYSIS OF EROSIVE PROCESS BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND LOSS OF SEDIMENT IN THE ITAGIBA SLOPE, NORTHERN ZONE OF SANTA MARIA – RS
Keywords:Precipitation, Loss of sediments, Slope, Toposequence.
Occupation in risk areas in the Brazilian cities happens, mainly, because of social segregation and space management. In the city of Santa Maria, occupation in risk areas also occurs. One of these areas is the Itagiba slope, located in the neighborhood of Chácara das Flores, nor- thern zone of the city. The route of the Santa Maria-Uruguaiana railroad, designed by the Belgium Consortium, in 1890, has lead to changes in the north side of Kennedy Town. By modifying the conformation of the landscape, the sectioning of the slope changed the topography. In this sense, this work aims to contribute to the understanding of the erosive process in the slope and establish the relationship between precipitation and total loss of sediment. Aiming at this goal, the volumes of total precipitation and the amount of sediment removed in each event of precipitation were monitored over a period of two years. For this evaluation, the pedological volumes in the Itagiba slope were analyzed in terms of texture and consistency limits. Along a toposequence was also evaluated the coefficient of infiltration. Results showed a positive correlation between the volume of precipitation and the loss of sediments. Higher volume of loss was observed in pedological volumes with higher silt content. The coefficient of infiltration decreased with increasing depth, clay content, and plasticity. The evaluation of the toposequence shows that the increase in depth causes the increase of horizontal flows, and that the conformation of the slope profile is controlled by this process.
How to Cite
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.
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.