SUBDIVISION OF THE RELIEF IN MANOEL VIANA MUNICIPALLY - RS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X11217Keywords:
Hypsometry, Slope, Analysis of slope, Relief Units, West RSAbstract
The Manoel Viana municipality is located in western Rio Grande do Sul, in Ibicui River Basin. The altitudes are among the range of 80 m and120 m above the sea level, corresponding to 46% of the total altitude, and 120 m and 180 m above the sea level, which has approximately 49% ofthe total. The lowest altitude is approximately 60 m and it is along the plain of the Ibicuí river, and the highest altitude is approximately 240m,in the northeast region of Manoel Viana. The predominant declivity distance is less of 2%, with more than half the study area 56%, distributedat all altitudes, being characteristic of the plain reliefs, the broad interfluves and the tops of hills and hillock. The landforms can be classifiedas: ramps of valley bottom characterized by presenting a slope less than 2% occurring among the major drainages; forms of gently rolling hillswith slopes between 2% and 5% and wide lengths; forms of strongly wavy hills characterized by slopes between 5 and 15% that occur in thetransition area between two levels of dissection; isolated mounts characterized by amplitudes lower than 100m and steep slopes, associated withthe most resistant portions to erosion; and associated to mounts, forms of hills which are called sedimentary rocks from the formation of Guaráand Botucatu; the forms of mounts and hills associated to the strongly wavy hills, which characterize by slopes greater than 15%, occurring thetransition of the first to a second level of dissection.
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.
