Arroios Jaguarí–Mirim, Inhadiju e Piquiri em seu Contexto Geomorfológico
AbstractThe present article aims at the mapping of the GeomorphologicUnits of the Hydrographic Basins of the Jaguari Mirim, Inhadiju, and PiquiriStreams, located in the west of Rio Grande do Sul – Brazil. To make thiscartographic document, was necessary some catchments of morphometricalproperties of relief, geological, soils and erosion process. Data analyzesdefined six units characterized as: Unit I – Plane Top Relief in VolcanicSpill: shows plane relief with relatively low erosive processes andintemperism; Unit II – Hills in Volcanic Spill: slightly wavy areas underneaththe plateau summit; Unit III – Hills and Small Size Hills in Volcanic Rock:formed by strongly wavy relief and with scarps; Unit IV – Small Size Hillsin Sandstone: composed by isolated small size hills with origin associatedto the existence of united sandstones that keeps the plane top relief; UnitV – Hills in Sandstone: Relief of hills located at the medium and low courseof the streams, with the occurrence of accelerated erosive processes whichproduce sand dunes and accelerated erosions, and sometimes with theblooming of united sandstones in the half-slope or in the top; Unit IV -Plane Relief in Low Altitude: Relief of plane topography that predisposesthe superficial dynamic processes, generating the accumulation of sedimentsas well as the formation of fluvial terraces. The fragility of the naturalsystems, in face of the antropic interventions, is largely associated to itsgenetic characteristics. Thus, the geomorphologic analysis in theenvironmental studies is a tool for the maintainable planning of the activitiesintroduced in the region.
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.