DOCSLIB.ORG

San Pedro River Aquifer Binational Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Pedro River Aquifer Binational Report SAN PEDRO RIVER AQUIFER BINATIONAL REPORT January 31, 2016 AUTHORITY This report and study were carried out by the United States and Mexico in accordance with resolution 6 of Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (IBWC) entitled “Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River”, dated August 30, 1973; and the "Joint Report of the Principal Engineers Regarding the Joint Cooperative Process United States-Mexico for the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program”, dated August 19, 2009. FUNDING The funding for this study came from the United States Geological Survey, the University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center and Technology Research and Initiative Fund, Mexico's National Water Commission, and the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico. PARTICIPATING AGENCIES International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico For Mexico: National Water Commission University of Sonora For the United States: United States Geological Survey The University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center Authors: J.B. Callegary, I. Minjárez Sosa, E.M. Tapia Villaseñor, P. dos Santos, R. Monreal Saavedra, F.J. Grijalva Noriega, A.K. Huth, F. Gray, C.A. Scott, L.A. Oroz Ramos, S.B. Megdal, M. Rangel Medina, J.M. Leenhouts Suggested Citation: Callegary, J.B., Minjárez Sosa, I., Tapia Villaseñor, E.M., dos Santos, P., Monreal Saavedra, R., Grijalva Noriega, F.J., Huth, A.K., Gray, F., Scott, C.A., Megdal, S.B., Oroz Ramos, L.A., Rangel Medina, M., Leenhouts, J.M., 2016, San Pedro River Aquifer Binational Report: International Boundary and Water Commission, 170 p. BINATIONAL STUDY GROUP For the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico: - Roberto F. Salmón Castelo, Commissioner, Mexican Section - Luis Antonio Rascón Mendoza, Principal Engineer, Mexican Section - Manuel Morales Galván, Engineer, Project Coordinator, Mexican Section - Ramiro Luján Godínez, Engineer, Project Coordinator, Mexican Section - Jesús Quintanar Guadarrama, Representative in Nogales, Sonora, Mexican Section - Edward Drusina, Commissioner, United States Section - John L. Merino, Principal Engineer, United States Section - Jose A. Nuñez, Principal Engineer, United States Section - Gilbert Anaya, Division Chief, Project Coordinator, United States Section For the National Water Commission: - Rubén Chávez Guillén - Roberto Sención Aceves - Lucas Oroz Ramos - José Arturo López - Victor M. Castañón Arcos For the Sonora State Water Commission: - Roberto Molina Acedo - Alberto Bustamante Juvera For the University of Sonora: - Ismael Minjárez Sosa, Coordinator, Principal Investigator - Rogelio Monreal Saavedra, Principal Investigator - Elia María Tapia Villaseñor, Principal Investigator - Francisco Javier Grijalva Noriega, Principal Investigator - Miguel Rangel Medina For the United States Geological Survey: - James Leenhouts, Director, Arizona Water Science Center - Bruce Gungle, Hydrologist - James Callegary, Hydrologist, Principal Investigator - Floyd Gray, Geologist, Principal Investigator For the University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center: - Sharon Megdal, Director - Plácido dos Santos, Coordinator, Principal Investigator - Christopher Scott, Principle Investigator - Anne Huth, GIS Research Investigator The binational group acknowledges the valuable participation of a great number of technical and administrative collaborators who directly or indirectly participated in the development of this study, either through supervision, field work, printing, editing, administrative control, etc., or through valuable contributions of information, ideas and comments on the study results, and their interpretation. Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... 1 AGENCIES .............................................................................................................................. 1 KEY TECHNICAL TERMS ...................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 3 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 8 1.1. Background .................................................................................................................. 8 1.2. Study Area ................................................................................................................... 9 1.3. Study Objectives ......................................................................................................... 12 1.4. Previous Studies ......................................................................................................... 12 1.5. Binational Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................ 13 1.6. Binational Water Management Environment .................................................................. 14 1.7. Technical Work Undertaken ......................................................................................... 15 1.8. Methodologies and Techniques Applied ......................................................................... 16 2. PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 18 2.1. Physiographic Province................................................................................................ 18 2.2. Drainage Network and Drainage Basin .......................................................................... 18 2.3. Hydrologic Region ...................................................................................................... 20 2.4. Soils .......................................................................................................................... 20 2.5. Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 23 3. SURFACE-WATER HYDROLOGY AND HYDROMETEOROLOGY ........................................... 25 3.1. Climatological Analysis ............................................................................................... 25 3.2. Precipitation and Evapotranspiration ............................................................................. 26 3.3. Surface Hydrologic System .......................................................................................... 34 3.4. Terrain Slopes ............................................................................................................ 37 3.5. Land Cover and Use .................................................................................................... 37 4. CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC MODEL ......................................................................................... 41 4.1. Regional Geologic Context........................................................................................... 41 4.2. Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................ 42 4.3. Structural Geology ...................................................................................................... 51 4.4. Three-dimensional Geology of the Subsurface ................................................................ 51 4.5. Depth to Basement and Structure .................................................................................. 52 4.6. Characteristics of the Sedimentary Fill ........................................................................... 55 5. HYDROGEOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 59 5.1. Hydrogeologic Basement ............................................................................................. 59 5.2. Hydrostratigraphic Units .............................................................................................. 61 5.3. Definition of the Aquifer System .................................................................................. 63 6. PIEZOMETRY AND HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS .................................................................... 64 6.1. Comprehensive Well Survey ........................................................................................ 64 6.2. Description of Spatial and Temporal Variability of Water Levels ...................................... 74 6.3. Definition and Interpretation of Subsurface Hydraulic Parameters ..................................... 78 7. HYDROGEOCHEMISTRY ........................................................................................................ 83 7.1. Hydrogeochemical Sampling ........................................................................................ 83 7.2. Temperature and pH .................................................................................................... 84 7.3. Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 87 7.4. Distribution of Major Ions and Identification of Water Families ........................................ 92 7.5. Stable Isotopes .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Depositional Environment and Petrographic Analysis of the Lower Cretaceous Morita Formation, Bisbee Group, Southeastern Arizona and Northern Sonora, Mexico
    The depositional environment and petrographic analysis of the Lower Cretaceous Morita Formation, Bisbee Group, southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); maps Authors Jamison, Kermit Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 07/10/2021 12:34:21 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/557979 THE DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT AND PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE LOWER CRETACEOUS MORITA FORMATION, BISBEE GROUP, SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA AND NORTHERN SONORA, MEXICO by HERMIT JAMISON A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN GEOLOGY In the Graudate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 8 3 Call N o . BINDING INSTRUCTIONS INTERLIBRARY INSTRUCTIONS Dept. i *9 7 9 1 Author: J ttm ilO Il, K e 1983 548 Title: RUSH____________________ PERMABIND- PAMPHLET GIFT________________ _____ COLOR: M .S . POCKET FOR MAP COVERS Front Both Special Instructions - Bindery or Repair PFFFPFKirF 3 /2 2 /8 5 Other-----------------------------— . r- STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill­ ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknow­ ledgement of source is made.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Coronado National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Coronado National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Gypsy Moth Management in the - Vegetation management Completed Actual: 11/28/2012 01/2013 Susan Ellsworth United States: A Cooperative (other than forest products) 775-355-5313 Approach [email protected]. EIS us *UPDATED* Description: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are analyzing a range of strategies for controlling gypsy moth damage to forests and trees in the United States. Web Link: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/wv/eis/ Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Nationwide. Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Sarah Shoemaker 228, subpart A. Orders NOI in Federal Register 907-586-7886 EIS 09/13/2018 [email protected] d.us *UPDATED* Est. DEIS NOA in Federal Register 03/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Paleozoic and Cretaceous Stratigraphy of the Hidalgo County Area, New Mexico Eugene Greenwood, F
    New Mexico Geological Society Downloaded from: http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/21 Upper Paleozoic and Cretaceous stratigraphy of the Hidalgo County area, New Mexico Eugene Greenwood, F. E. Kottlowski, and A. K. Armstrong, 1970, pp. 33-44 in: Tyrone, Big Hatchet Mountain, Florida Mountains Region, Woodward, L. A.; [ed.], New Mexico Geological Society 21st Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, 176 p. This is one of many related papers that were included in the 1970 NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebook. Annual NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebooks Every fall since 1950, the New Mexico Geological Society (NMGS) has held an annual Fall Field Conference that explores some region of New Mexico (or surrounding states). Always well attended, these conferences provide a guidebook to participants. Besides detailed road logs, the guidebooks contain many well written, edited, and peer-reviewed geoscience papers. These books have set the national standard for geologic guidebooks and are an essential geologic reference for anyone working in or around New Mexico. Free Downloads NMGS has decided to make peer-reviewed papers from our Fall Field Conference guidebooks available for free download. Non-members will have access to guidebook papers two years after publication. Members have access to all papers. This is in keeping with our mission of promoting interest, research, and cooperation regarding geology in New Mexico. However, guidebook sales represent a significant proportion of our operating budget. Therefore, only research papers are available for download. Road logs, mini-papers, maps, stratigraphic charts, and other selected content are available only in the printed guidebooks. Copyright Information Publications of the New Mexico Geological Society, printed and electronic, are protected by the copyright laws of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexicon of Geologic Names of Southern Arizona Larry Mayer, 1978, Pp
    New Mexico Geological Society Downloaded from: http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/29 Lexicon of geologic names of southern Arizona Larry Mayer, 1978, pp. 143-156 in: Land of Cochise (Southeastern Arizona), Callender, J. F.; Wilt, J.; Clemons, R. E.; James, H. L.; [eds.], New Mexico Geological Society 29th Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, 348 p. This is one of many related papers that were included in the 1978 NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebook. Annual NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebooks Every fall since 1950, the New Mexico Geological Society (NMGS) has held an annual Fall Field Conference that explores some region of New Mexico (or surrounding states). Always well attended, these conferences provide a guidebook to participants. Besides detailed road logs, the guidebooks contain many well written, edited, and peer-reviewed geoscience papers. These books have set the national standard for geologic guidebooks and are an essential geologic reference for anyone working in or around New Mexico. Free Downloads NMGS has decided to make peer-reviewed papers from our Fall Field Conference guidebooks available for free download. Non-members will have access to guidebook papers two years after publication. Members have access to all papers. This is in keeping with our mission of promoting interest, research, and cooperation regarding geology in New Mexico. However, guidebook sales represent a significant proportion of our operating budget. Therefore, only research papers are available for download. Road logs, mini-papers, maps, stratigraphic charts, and other selected content are available only in the printed guidebooks. Copyright Information Publications of the New Mexico Geological Society, printed and electronic, are protected by the copyright laws of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1
    Appendix 1. Summary of location, basin, and hydrological-regime characteristics for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona and parts of adjacent states that were used to calibrate hydrological-regime models [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model development] Average percent of Latitude, Longitude, Site Complete Number of Percent of year with Hydrologic decimal decimal Hydrologic altitude, Drainage area, years of perennial years no flow, Identifier Name unit code degrees degrees province feet square miles record years perennial 1950-2005 09379050 LUKACHUKAI CREEK NEAR 14080204 36.47750 109.35010 1 5,750 160e 5 1 20% 2% LUKACHUKAI, AZ 09379180 LAGUNA CREEK AT DENNEHOTSO, 14080204 36.85389 109.84595 1 4,985 414.0 9 0 0% 39% AZ 09379200 CHINLE CREEK NEAR MEXICAN 14080204 36.94389 109.71067 1 4,720 3,650.0 41 0 0% 15% WATER, AZ 09382000 PARIA RIVER AT LEES FERRY, AZ 14070007 36.87221 111.59461 1 3,124 1,410.0 56 56 100% 0% 09383200 LEE VALLEY CR AB LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.50204 1 9,440e 1.3 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383220 LEE VALLEY CREEK TRIBUTARY 15020001 33.93894 109.50204 1 9,440e 0.5 6 0 0% 49% NEAR GREER, ARIZ. 09383250 LEE VALLEY CR BL LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.49787 1 9,400e 1.9 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383400 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AT GREER, 15020001 34.01671 109.45731 1 8,283 29.1 22 22 100% 0% ARIZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Flows and Water Demands in Arizona
    Environmental Flows and Water A University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center Project Demands in Arizona ater is an increasingly scarce resource and is essential for Arizona’s future. Figure 1. Elements of Environmental Flow WWith Arizona’s population growth and Occurring in Seasonal Hydrographs continued drought, citizens and water managers have been taking a closer look at water supplies in the state. Municipal, industrial, and agricul- tural water users are well-represented demand sectors, but water supplies and management to benefit the environment are not often consid- ered. This bulletin explains environmental water demands in Arizona and introduces information essential for considering environmental water demands in water management discussions. Considering water for the environment is impor- tant because humans have an interconnected and interdependent relationship with the envi- ronment. Nature provides us recreation oppor- tunities, economic benefits, and water supplies Data Source: to sustain our communities. USGS stream gage data Figure 2: Human Demand and Current Flow in Arizona Environmental water demands (or environmental flow) (circle size indicates relative amount of water) refers to how much water is needed in a watercourse to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Defining environmental water demand goes beyond the ecology and hydrol- Maximum ogy of a system and should include consideration for Flows how much water is required to achieve an agreed Industrial 40.8 maf Industrial SW Municipal upon level of river health, as determined by the GW 1% GW 8% water-using community. Arizona’s native ani- 4% mals and plants depend upon dynamic flows commonly described according to the natural Municipal SW flow regime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Southern Arizona Guest Ranch As a Symbol of the West
    The Southern Arizona guest ranch as a symbol of the West Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Norris, Frank B. (Frank Blaine), 1950-. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 07/10/2021 15:00:58 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555065 THE SOUTHERN ARIZONA GUEST RANCH AS A SYMBOL OF THE WEST by Frank Blaine Norris A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND URBAN PLANNING In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS WITH A MAJOR IN GEOGRAPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 6 Copyright 1976 Frank Blaine Norris STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill­ ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowl­ edgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder. SIGNED: APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is the collective effort of many, and to each who played a part in its compilation, I am indebted.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesozoic Stratigraphy of the Patagonia Mountains and Adjoining Areas, Santa Cruz County, Arizona
    Mesozoic Stratigraphy of the Patagonia Mountains and Adjoining Areas, Santa Cruz County, Arizona GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 658-E Mesozoic Stratigraphy of the Patagonia Mountains and Adjoining Areas, Santa Cruz County, Arizona By FRANK S. SIMONS MESOZOIC STRATIGRAPHY IN SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 658-E Descriptive stratigraphy of Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous rocks that are mainly rhyolites but that include some sedimentary rocks and intermediate volcanic rocks UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1972 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS G. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 40 cents (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-1205 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract El Cretaceous rocks . E13 Introduction 1 Bisbee Formation . .. 13 Triassic and Jurassic rocks... ... ... ... 2 Fossils and age. _....... 16 Canelo Hills Volcanics. ... ... 2 Volcanic rocks of lower Alum Gulch 16 Triassic or Jurassic rocks ._- . 3 Volcanic rocks of Dove Canyon.. 17 Volcanic rocks in the southern Patagonia Trachyandesite of Meadow Valley 18 Mountains ... __ __ . .... 3 Tuff and shale.... ... ..... 18 UX Ranch block . 3 Thin lava flows 19 Duquesne block.........._ ..... .. ...... 3 Thick lava flows 20 Corral Canyon block..... _ . .. 6 Chemical composition 20 Volcaniclastic sequence . .._ . 6 Alteration of trachyandesitic lavas. ... 20 Volcanic sequence.. .._. 7 Age .. - - 21 American Mine block. .._ 8 Cretaceous or Tertiary rocks ... ......... 21 Thunder Mine block _ 9 Volcanic rocks of the Humboldt Chemical composition... ....... ....... 9 mine-Trench Camp area ... ... 21 Age and correlation.. 10 Volcanic rocks of Red Mountain 22 Volcanic and sedimentary rocks References cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Cienegas Vanishing Climax Communities of the American
    Hendrickson and Minckley Cienegas of the American Southwest 131 Abstract Cienegas The term cienega is here applied to mid-elevation (1,000-2,000 m) wetlands characterized by permanently saturated, highly organic, reducing soils. A depauperate Vanishing Climax flora dominated by low sedges highly adapted to such soils characterizes these habitats. Progression to cienega is Communities of the dependent on a complex association of factors most likely found in headwater areas. Once achieved, the community American Southwest appears stable and persistent since paleoecological data indicate long periods of cienega conditions, with infre- quent cycles of incision. We hypothesize the cienega to be an aquatic climax community. Cienegas and other marsh- land habitats have decreased greatly in Arizona in the Dean A. Hendrickson past century. Cultural impacts have been diverse and not Department of Zoology, well documented. While factors such as grazing and Arizona State University streambed modifications contributed to their destruction, the role of climate must also be considered. Cienega con- and ditions could be restored at historic sites by provision of ' constant water supply and amelioration of catastrophic W. L. Minckley flooding events. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dexter Fish Hatchery Introduction and Department of Zoology Written accounts and photographs of early explorers Arizona State University and settlers (e.g., Hastings and Turner, 1965) indicate that most pre-1890 aquatic habitats in southeastern Arizona were different from what they are today. Sandy, barren streambeds (Interior Strands of Minckley and Brown, 1982) now lie entrenched between vertical walls many meters below dry valley surfaces. These same streams prior to 1880 coursed unincised across alluvial fills in shallow, braided channels, often through lush marshes.
    [Show full text]
  • T.C. Selçuk Ünġversġtesġ Fen Bġlġmlerġ Enstġtüsü Tuzlu
    T.C. SELÇUK ÜNĠVERSĠTESĠ FEN BĠLĠMLERĠ ENSTĠTÜSÜ TUZLU TOPRAKLARDA KATALAZ ENZĠMĠNĠN AKTĠVĠTESĠ VE KĠNETĠĞĠ Emine YILDIRIM YÜKSEK LĠSANS TEZĠ TOPRAK BĠLĠMĠ VE BĠTKĠ BESLEME ANABĠLĠM DALI KONYA, 2010 ÖZET YÜKSEK LĠSANS TEZĠ TUZLU TOPRAKLARDA KATALAZ ENZĠMĠNĠN AKTĠVĠTESĠ VE KĠNETĠĞĠ Emine YILDIRIM Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Anabilim Dalı DanıĢman: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Fariz MĠKAĠLSOY 2010, Sayfa: 72 Jüri: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Fariz MĠKAĠLSOY Prof. Dr. Nizamettin ÇĠFTÇĠ Doç. Dr. Refik UYANÖZ Bu araĢtırmada, Tuz gölü çevresi tarım dıĢı arazilerden alınan 3 toprak örneğinde çalıĢılmıĢtır. Gazometrik metod kullanılarak katalaz enziminin aktivitesi tayin edilerek kinetik parametreleri hesaplanmıĢtır. Fiziksel, kimyasal özellikleri ve % tuz oranı farklı toprakların katalaz enzim analizi 20+1 oC laboratuar koĢullarında değiĢik substrat konsantrasyonlarda (% 3, % 6, % 9, % 12, % 15, % 18, %2 1, % 24, % 27, % 30 H2O2) yürütülmüĢtür. Bu analizde ürün olarak açığa çıkan O2‟nin zamana göre değiĢimi (20, 40, 60, 80,….300 sn) kararlı hale gelmesine kadar devam edilmiĢtir. Katalaz enzim aktivitesi (υ) ve kinetik parametreleri (υ0, Vmax ve Km) her toprak için ayrı ayrı yapılmıĢtır. Sonuçlara göre, tuz konsantrasyonu yüksek toprakta katalaz enziminin kinetik parametresi olan Km‟nin değeri yüksek bulunmuĢtur. Vmax değeri ise en düĢük olarak bulunmuĢtur. Ayrıca reaksiyon hızının % 24 substrat konsantrasyonunda artıĢ gösterdiği ve daha sonra değiĢmediği tesbit edildi. Bu metod toprakta katalaz enzim aktivitesinin tesbitinde kullanılabilir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Toprak, enzim aktivitesi, katalaz, kinetik parametreler, tuz i ABSTRACT MASTER THESĠS ACTIVITY AND KINETICS OF CATALASE ENZYME IN SALINE SOILS Emine YILDIRIM Selçuk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition Supervisor: Yrd. Doç.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering the Whiptail Ruin Excavations
    Bulletin of Old Pueblo Archaeology Center Tucson, Arizona September 2009 Number 59 REMEMBERING THE WHIPTAIL RUIN EXCAVATIONS Linda M. Gregonis, Gayle H. Hartmann, and Sharon F. Urban Tucked along a bedrock pediment at the base of village was occupied from the early 1200s until about the Santa Catalina Mountains in the northeastern 1300. At least 40 rooms, a rock-walled compound, corner of the Tucson Basin are a series of perennial two Hohokam cemeteries, and a few low trash springs. These springs have provided water for mounds have been identified at the site. thousands of years, creating small oases where birds, Most of the structures were detached, adobe- mammals, and other animals could always find a walled rooms, but several adobe rooms with drink. The springs attracted humans, too. Early on, contiguous (shared) walls were also found. Features Archaic-era people hunted game at these watering at the site were broadly distributed across an area of holes and left behind spear points and other stone about 50 acres, with groups of rooms and other tools. Later, the Hohokam used the springs for both domestic features typically clustered into small hunting and farming. Today, much of the area is residential neighborhoods (see site map below). preserved within Agua Caliente Park and managed by The historian and ethnologist Adolph Bandelier, the Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and who Bandelier National Monument is named after, Recreation Department. may have been the first scholar to become aware of Whiptail Ruin, AZ BB:10:3(ASM), is one of the Whiptail Ruin. On a visit to Tucson in 1883 he toured Hohokam villages established near these springs.
    [Show full text]