DOCSLIB.ORG

Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment MMoojjaavvee DDeesseerrtt EEccoorreeggiioonnaall AAsssseessssmmeenntt Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment September 2010 Version 1.1 The Nature Conservancy of California 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Planning Team John M. Randall Sophie S. Parker James Moore Brian Cohen Laura Crane Bill Christian Dick Cameron Jason B. Mackenzie Kirk Klausmeyer Scott Morrison The Mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Cover photographs by James Moore and Bill Christian © 2010 Recommended Citation: Randall, J. M., S.S. Parker, J. Moore, B. Cohen, L. Crane, B. Christian, D. Cameron, J. MacKenzie, K. Klausmeyer and S. Morrison. 2010. Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment. Unpublished Report. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California. 106 pages + appendices. Available at: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/mojave/documents/mojave-desert- ecoregional-2010/@@view.html. Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment Table of Contents List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................vi List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ vii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ix 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment Purpose and Approach .............................................3 1.1.1 Overview of the Ecoregional Assessment Approach.........................................................4 1.1.2 Distinguishing Areas of Conservation Value....................................................................5 1.1.3 Climate Change Adaptation Analysis...............................................................................8 1.2 Limitations on this Assessment................................................................................................8 1.3 Products of the Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment..........................................................9 2 The Study Area................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Ecoregion Boundaries and Subregions ..................................................................................10 2.1.1 Trans-boundary Connectivity..........................................................................................10 2.2 Ecological History and Current Vegetative Communities.....................................................10 2.3 Geomorphology......................................................................................................................13 2.4 Current Climate.....................................................................................................................14 2.5 Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................14 2.6 Land-Use History....................................................................................................................16 2.7 Current Land Ownership.......................................................................................................17 2.8 Conservation Management Status .........................................................................................18 3 Conservation Values of the Mojave Desert Ecoregion .......................................................... 23 3.1 Ecological Significance of the Mojave Desert ........................................................................23 3.2 Animal Diversity and Rare and Listed Species ......................................................................23 3.3 Plant Diversity and Rare and Listed Species..........................................................................24 3.4 Soil Biota and the Vital Importance of Soil Integrity ............................................................27 3.5 Landscape Context.................................................................................................................27 3.5.1 Intactness vs. Fragmentation...........................................................................................27 3.5.2 Climate Change Adaptation ...........................................................................................28 3.6 Landscape-scale Ecological Processes......................................................................................28 The Nature Conservancy iii September 2010 Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment 3.6.1 Ecological Integrity, Connectivity, and Ecosystem Services............................................28 3.6.2 Water, Watersheds, and Groundwater to Surface Water Linkages................................29 3.6.3 Aeolian Processes, Sand Sources, and Sand Deposition ................................................29 3.6.4 Fire Regimes....................................................................................................................30 3.7 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................32 4 Existing Management and Conservation Efforts .................................................................. 33 4.1 Federal Lands .........................................................................................................................33 4.2 State Lands .............................................................................................................................33 4.3 Native American Lands..........................................................................................................35 4.4 Regional Conservation Plans .................................................................................................36 4.5 Non-governmental Organization Lands.................................................................................38 4.6 Private Lands ..........................................................................................................................38 4.7 Conservation Management Challenges .................................................................................39 4.7.1 Multiple Mandates and Constraints ...............................................................................39 4.7.2 Lack of Coordinated Management .................................................................................39 4.7.3 Single-Species Focus ........................................................................................................40 4.7.4 Knowledge Gaps and Public Misconceptions.................................................................40 4.8 Restoration Efforts .................................................................................................................41 4.9 Mitigation Programs...............................................................................................................42 5 Threats and Conservation Challenges.................................................................................. 43 5.1 Land-Use Changes..................................................................................................................44 5.1.1 Urban Expansion and Proliferation................................................................................44 5.1.1.1 Housing and Commercial Development.................................................................44 5.1.1.2 Transportation Infrastructure..................................................................................46 5.1.2 Electrical Generation and Transmission.........................................................................48 5.1.2.1 Differences in Impacts of Proposed Technologies...................................................48 5.1.2.2 Transmission Lines and Utility Corridors...............................................................51 5.1.2.3 Other Related Infrastructure ...................................................................................51 5.1.3 Groundwater Pumping, Water Diversions, and Streambed Modifications ...................53 5.1.4 Recreational Off-highway Vehicle Use............................................................................55 5.1.5 Agriculture ......................................................................................................................56 5.1.6 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................56 5.1.7 Mining.............................................................................................................................57 5.1.8 Military Activities ............................................................................................................58 5.1.9 Waste Disposal................................................................................................................58 5.2 Invasive Non-native Species ...................................................................................................60 5.3 Deposition of Air Pollutants ..................................................................................................62
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Habitat Use by the Fishes of a Southwestern Desert Stream: Cherry Creek, Arizona
    ARIZONA COOPERATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT SEPTEMBER 2010 Habitat use by the fishes of a southwestern desert stream: Cherry Creek, Arizona By: Scott A. Bonar, Norman Mercado-Silva, and David Rogowski Fisheries Research Report 02-10 Support Provided by: 1 Habitat use by the fishes of a southwestern desert stream: Cherry Creek, Arizona By Scott A. Bonar, Norman Mercado-Silva, and David Rogowski USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit School of Natural Resources and the Environment 325 Biological Sciences East University of Arizona Tucson AZ 85721 USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit Fisheries Research Report 02-10 Funding provided by: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service With additional support from: School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona Arizona Department of Game and Fish United States Geological Survey 2 Executive Summary Fish communities in the Southwest U.S. face numerous threats of anthropogenic origin. Most importantly, declining instream flows have impacted southwestern stream fish assemblages. Maintenance of water flows that sustain viable fish communities is key in maintaining the ecological function of river ecosystems in arid regions. Efforts to calculate the optimal amount of water that will ensure long-term viability of species in a stream community require that the specific habitat requirements for all species in the community be known. Habitat suitability criteria (HSC) are used to translate structural and hydraulic characteristics of streams into indices of habitat quality for fishes. Habitat suitability criteria summarize the preference of fishes for numerous habitat variables. We estimated HSC for water depth, water velocity, substrate, and water temperature for the fishes of Cherry Creek, Arizona, a perennial desert stream.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Assessment for Boreal Toad (Bufo Boreas Boreas)
    SPECIES ASSESSMENT FOR BOREAL TOAD (BUFO BOREAS BOREAS ) IN WYOMING prepared by 1 2 MATT MCGEE AND DOUG KEINATH 1 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071; 307-766-3023 2 Zoology Program Manager, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071; 307-766-3013; [email protected] drawing by Summers Scholl prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office Cheyenne, Wyoming March 2004 McGee and Keinath – Bufo boreas boreas March 2004 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 NATURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................................... 4 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 4 Taxonomy and Distribution ..................................................................................................... 5 Habitat Requirements............................................................................................................. 8 General ............................................................................................................................................8 Spring-Summer ...............................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • ENDANGERED SPECIES: Groups Petition FWS to List Amargosa Toad (02/28/2008)
    ENDANGERED SPECIES: Groups petition FWS to list Amargosa toad (02/28/2008) April Reese, Land Letter Western reporter The Amargosa toad should be added to the federal endangered species list, according to a petition filed Tuesday with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by environmental groups. In their petition, filed Feb. 26, the Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility argue that urban development, water diversions and increased off- road vehicle use throughout the toad's range in Nevada's Oasis Valley have pushed the species toward extinction. According to the groups, the Amargosa toad is already restricted to a 10-mile stretch of the Amargosa River -- one of Nevada's last free- flowing rivers -- and adjacent desert uplands. "It only has a small amount of habitat," said Daniel Patterson, PEER's southwest director, who formerly worked for the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada as an ecologist. "It's got no where to go. There's really no room for error." FWS considered listing the toad in the 1990s after receiving a petition from environmental groups but decided the species did not warrant Males tend to be smaller, reaching 3 to 4 inches, while federal protection. At the time, FWS concluded females may reach 3.5 to 5 inches. Unlike most frogs and toads, the Amargosa toad is voiceless except for “release that the toad was more widespread than the calls” or chirps made by males when grasped below their petition suggested, although it also said more forelimbs by another toad or human. Photo courtesy of FWS.
    [Show full text]
  • Pima County Plant List (2020) Common Name Exotic? Source
    Pima County Plant List (2020) Common Name Exotic? Source McLaughlin, S. (1992); Van Abies concolor var. concolor White fir Devender, T. R. (2005) McLaughlin, S. (1992); Van Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica Corkbark fir Devender, T. R. (2005) Abronia villosa Hariy sand verbena McLaughlin, S. (1992) McLaughlin, S. (1992); Van Abutilon abutiloides Shrubby Indian mallow Devender, T. R. (2005) Abutilon berlandieri Berlandier Indian mallow McLaughlin, S. (1992) Abutilon incanum Indian mallow McLaughlin, S. (1992) McLaughlin, S. (1992); Van Abutilon malacum Yellow Indian mallow Devender, T. R. (2005) Abutilon mollicomum Sonoran Indian mallow McLaughlin, S. (1992) Abutilon palmeri Palmer Indian mallow McLaughlin, S. (1992) Abutilon parishii Pima Indian mallow McLaughlin, S. (1992) McLaughlin, S. (1992); UA Abutilon parvulum Dwarf Indian mallow Herbarium; ASU Vascular Plant Herbarium Abutilon pringlei McLaughlin, S. (1992) McLaughlin, S. (1992); UA Abutilon reventum Yellow flower Indian mallow Herbarium; ASU Vascular Plant Herbarium McLaughlin, S. (1992); Van Acacia angustissima Whiteball acacia Devender, T. R. (2005); DBGH McLaughlin, S. (1992); Van Acacia constricta Whitethorn acacia Devender, T. R. (2005) McLaughlin, S. (1992); Van Acacia greggii Catclaw acacia Devender, T. R. (2005) Acacia millefolia Santa Rita acacia McLaughlin, S. (1992) McLaughlin, S. (1992); Van Acacia neovernicosa Chihuahuan whitethorn acacia Devender, T. R. (2005) McLaughlin, S. (1992); UA Acalypha lindheimeri Shrubby copperleaf Herbarium Acalypha neomexicana New Mexico copperleaf McLaughlin, S. (1992); DBGH Acalypha ostryaefolia McLaughlin, S. (1992) Acalypha pringlei McLaughlin, S. (1992) Acamptopappus McLaughlin, S. (1992); UA Rayless goldenhead sphaerocephalus Herbarium Acer glabrum Douglas maple McLaughlin, S. (1992); DBGH Acer grandidentatum Sugar maple McLaughlin, S. (1992); DBGH Acer negundo Ashleaf maple McLaughlin, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Three-Species Investigations Kevin Thompson Aquatic Research
    Three-Species Investigations Kevin Thompson Aquatic Research Scientist Job Progress Report Colorado Parks & Wildlife Aquatic Research Section Fort Collins, Colorado May 2017 STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bob Randall, Executive Director COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Bob Broscheid, Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION Chris Castilian, Chair Robert William Bray Jeanne Horne, Vice-Chair John V. Howard, Jr. James C. Pribyl, Secretary James Vigil William G. Kane Dale E. Pizil Robert “Dean” Wingfield Michelle Zimmerman Alexander Zipp Ex Officio/Non-Voting Members: Don Brown, Bob Randall and Bob Broscheid AQUATIC RESEARCH STAFF George J. Schisler, Aquatic Research Leader Kelly Carlson, Aquatic Research Program Assistant Peter Cadmus, Aquatic Research Scientist/Toxicologist, Water Pollution Studies Eric R. Fetherman, Aquatic Research Scientist, Salmonid Disease Studies Ryan Fitzpatrick, Aquatic Research Scientist, Eastern Plains Native Fishes Eric E. Richer, Aquatic Research Scientist/Hydrologist, Stream Habitat Restoration Matthew C. Kondratieff, Aquatic Research Scientist, Stream Habitat Restoration Dan Kowalski, Aquatic Research Scientist, Stream & River Ecology Adam Hansen, Aquatic Research Scientist, Coldwater Lakes and Reservoirs Kevin B. Rogers, Aquatic Research Scientist, Colorado Cutthroat Studies Kevin G. Thompson, Aquatic Research Scientist, 3-Species and Boreal Toad Studies Andrew J. Treble, Aquatic Research Scientist, Aquatic Data Management and Analysis Brad Neuschwanger, Hatchery Manager,
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Selection of the Desert Night Lizard (Xantusia Vigilis) on Mojave Yucca (Yucca Schidigera) in the Mojave Desert, California
    Habitat selection of the desert night lizard (Xantusia vigilis) on Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera) in the Mojave Desert, California Kirsten Boylan1, Robert Degen2, Carly Sanchez3, Krista Schmidt4, Chantal Sengsourinho5 University of California, San Diego1, University of California, Merced2, University of California, Santa Cruz3, University of California, Davis4 , University of California, San Diego5 ABSTRACT The Mojave Desert is a massive natural ecosystem that acts as a biodiversity hotspot for hundreds of different species. However, there has been little research into many of the organisms that comprise these ecosystems, one being the desert night lizard (Xantusia vigilis). Our study examined the relationship between the common X. vigilis and the Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera). We investigated whether X. vigilis exhibits habitat preference for fallen Y. schidigera log microhabitats and what factors make certain log microhabitats more suitable for X. vigilis inhabitation. We found that X. vigilis preferred Y. schidigera logs that were larger in circumference and showed no preference for dead or live clonal stands of Y. schidigera. When invertebrates were present, X. vigilis was approximately 50% more likely to also be present. These results suggest that X. vigilis have preferences for different types of Y. schidigera logs and logs where invertebrates are present. These findings are important as they help in understanding one of the Mojave Desert’s most abundant reptile species and the ecosystems of the Mojave Desert as a whole. INTRODUCTION such as the Mojave Desert in California. Habitat selection is an important The Mojave Desert has extreme factor in the shaping of an ecosystem. temperature fluctuations, ranging from Where an animal chooses to live and below freezing to over 134.6 degrees forage can affect distributions of plants, Fahrenheit (Schoenherr 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Interest and the Panamint Shoshone (E.G., Voegelin 1938; Zigmond 1938; and Kelly 1934)
    109 VyI. NOTES ON BOUNDARIES AND CULTURE OF THE PANAMINT SHOSHONE AND OWENS VALLEY PAIUTE * Gordon L. Grosscup Boundary of the Panamint The Panamint Shoshone, also referred to as the Panamint, Koso (Coso) and Shoshone of eastern California, lived in that portion of the Basin and Range Province which extends from the Sierra Nevadas on the west to the Amargosa Desert of eastern Nevada on the east, and from Owens Valley and Fish Lake Valley in the north to an ill- defined boundary in the south shared with Southern Paiute groups. These boundaries will be discussed below. Previous attempts to define the Panamint Shoshone boundary have been made by Kroeber (1925), Steward (1933, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1941) and Driver (1937). Others, who have worked with some of the groups which border the Panamint Shoshone, have something to say about the common boundary between the group of their special interest and the Panamint Shoshone (e.g., Voegelin 1938; Zigmond 1938; and Kelly 1934). Kroeber (1925: 589-560) wrote: "The territory of the westernmost member of this group [the Shoshone], our Koso, who form as it were the head of a serpent that curves across the map for 1, 500 miles, is one of the largest of any Californian people. It was also perhaps the most thinly populated, and one of the least defined. If there were boundaries, they are not known. To the west the crest of the Sierra has been assumed as the limit of the Koso toward the Tubatulabal. On the north were the eastern Mono of Owens River.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Relationships and Farina Evolution in the Cheilanthoid Fern
    Systematic Botany (2011), 36(3): pp. 554–564 © Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists DOI 10.1600/036364411X583547 Species Relationships and Farina Evolution in the Cheilanthoid Fern Genus Argyrochosma (Pteridaceae) Erin M. Sigel , 1 , 3 Michael D. Windham , 1 Layne Huiet , 1 George Yatskievych , 2 and Kathleen M. Pryer 1 1 Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708 U. S. A. 2 Missouri Botanical Garden, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, Missouri 63166 U. S. A. 3 Author for correspondence ( [email protected] ) Communicating Editor: Lynn Bohs Abstract— Convergent evolution driven by adaptation to arid habitats has made it difficult to identify monophyletic taxa in the cheilanthoid ferns. Dependence on distinctive, but potentially homoplastic characters, to define major clades has resulted in a taxonomic conundrum: all of the largest cheilanthoid genera have been shown to be polyphyletic. Here we reconstruct the first comprehensive phylogeny of the strictly New World cheilanthoid genus Argyrochosma . We use our reconstruction to examine the evolution of farina (powdery leaf deposits), which has played a prominent role in the circumscription of cheilanthoid genera. Our data indicate that Argyrochosma comprises two major monophyletic groups: one exclusively non-farinose and the other primarily farinose. Within the latter group, there has been at least one evolutionary reversal (loss) of farina and the development of major chemical variants that characterize specific clades. Our phylogenetic hypothesis, in combination with spore data and chromosome counts, also provides a critical context for addressing the prevalence of polyploidy and apomixis within the genus. Evidence from these datasets provides testable hypotheses regarding reticulate evolution and suggests the presence of several previ- ously undetected taxa of Argyrochosma.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Map of Standardized Terrestrial Ecosystems of Africa
    Major contributors to this publication include: The Association of American Geographers is a nonprofit scientific and educational society with a membership of over 10,500 individuals from more than 60 countries. AAG members are geographers and related professionals who work in the public, private, and academic sectors to advance the theory, methods, and practice of geography. This booklet is published by AAG as a special supplement to the African Geographical Review. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was created in 1879 as a science agency charged with providing information and understanding to help resolve complex natural resource problems across the nation and around the world. The mission of the USGS is to provide relevant, impartial scientific information to 1) describe and understand the Earth, 2) minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters, 3) manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources, and 4) enhance and protect our quality of life. NatureServe is an international conservation nonprofit dedicated to providing the sci- entific basis for effective conservation action. NatureServe’s network in the Americas includes more than 80 member institutions that collect and maintain a unique body of scientific knowledge about the species and ecosystems. The information products, data management tools, and biodiversity expertise that NatureServe’s scientists, technologists, and other professionals provide help meet local, national, and global conservation needs. The Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD) was es- tablished in Nairobi, Kenya in 1975 to provide quality Geo-Information and allied Information Technology products and services in environmental and resource manage- ment for sustainable development in our member countries and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTHEASTERN INYO Tt;OUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE SUPERPOSED MESOZOIC DEFOR~~TIONS~ }) SOUTHEASTERN INYO tt;OUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of 14aster of Science in Geology by Michael Robert Werner Janu(l.ry 3 i 979 The Thesis of Michael Robert Werner is approved: Or. L. Ehltg}rCSULA) Ca 1i forn i a State Un i vers ·j ty, Northridge ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ~1y respectful thanks to George Dunn£ for suggesting this study and for his helpful comments throughoutthe investigation. I am grateful also to Rick Miller and Perry Eh1ig VJho reviewed the manuscript in various stages of preparation. !'r1y special thanks to my parents for theit~ emotiona1 and 1ogistica·i support, and to Diane Evans who typed the first draft. Calvin Stevens and Duane Cavit, California State University~ San Jose, provided valuable information on stratigraphy; and Jean Ju11iand, geologist of the Desert Plan Staff, BLM, Riverside, made available aerial photographs of the study area.· The Department of Geosciences, California State University. Northridge pi·ovided computer time and financial support. Terry Dunn, CSUN, typed the fina1 manuscript. iii TAaLE OF CONTENTS p~~ ACKNOl~LEDGEHENTS. .. 111 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . vi ABSTRACT ... vii. INTRODUCTION 1 METHOD • 3 ROCK UNITS •. 5 PALEOZOIC STRATIGRAPHY . 5 Perdido Formation 7 Rest Spring Shale . .. 3 Keeler Canyon Formation 10 Owens Vulley Formation 14 MESOZOIC INTRUSIVE ROCKS . 16 • Hunter Mountain batholith 16 Andes 'ite porphyry di kas 17 CENOZOIC UNITS . 18 STRUCTURJl.L GEOLOGY 19 FOLDS • ~ . 19 Introduction 19 Folds in the Nelson Range . 21 F., - The San Lucas Canyon syncline 2"1 j r2 - Northwest-trending folds 31 Folds aajacent to the Hunter Mountain batholith 37 Folds in the Southeastern Inyo r'Jounta·ins 43 Southwest-trending folds 43 Northwest-trending folds .
    [Show full text]
  • Tesis Amarilla, Leonardo David.Pdf (5.496Mb)
    Universidad Nacional de Córdoba Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales Estudio Poblacional y Filogenético en Munroa (Poaceae, Chloridoideae) Lic. Leonardo David Amarilla Tesis para optar al grado de Doctor en Ciencias Biológicas Directora: Dra. Ana M. Anton Co-Director: Dr. Jorge O. Chiapella Asesora de Tesis: Dra. Victoria Sosa Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal CONICET-UNC Córdoba, Argentina 2014 Comisión Asesora de Tesis Dra. Ana M. Anton, IMBIV, Córdoba. Dra. Noemí Gardenal, IDEA, Córdoba. Dra. Liliana Giussani, IBODA, Buenos Aires. Defensa Oral y Pública Lugar y Fecha: Calificación: Tribunal evaluador de Tesis Firma………………………………… Aclaración…………………………………... Firma………………………………… Aclaración…………………………………... Firma………………………………… Aclaración…………………………………... “Tengamos ideales elevados y pensemos en alcanzar grandes cosas, porque como la vida rebaja siempre y no se logra sino una parte de lo que se ansía, soñando muy alto alcanzaremos mucho más” Bernardo Alberto Houssay A mis padres y hermanas Quiero expresar mi más profundo agradecimiento a mis directores de tesis, la Dra. Ana M. Anton y el Dr. Jorge O. Chiapella, por todo lo que me enseñaron en cuanto a sistemática y taxonomía de gramíneas, por sus consejos, acompañamiento y dedicación. De la misma manera, quiero agradecer a la Dra. Victoria Sosa (INECOL A.C., Veracruz, Xalapa, México) por su acompañamiento y por todo lo que me enseñó en cuando a filogeografía y genética de poblaciones. Además quiero agradecer… A mis compañeros de trabajo: Nicolás Nagahama, Raquel Scrivanti, Federico Robbiati, Lucia Castello, Jimena Nores, Marcelo Gritti. A los curadores y equipo técnico del Museo Botánico de Córdoba. A la Dra. Reneé Fortunato. A la Dra. Marcela M. Manifesto. A la Dra.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms
    Title 430 – National Soil Survey Handbook Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms Subpart A – General Information 629.0 Definition and Purpose This glossary provides the NCSS soil survey program, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists with landform, geologic, and related terms and their definitions to— (1) Improve soil landscape description with a standard, single source landform and geologic glossary. (2) Enhance geomorphic content and clarity of soil map unit descriptions by use of accurate, defined terms. (3) Establish consistent geomorphic term usage in soil science and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). (4) Provide standard geomorphic definitions for databases and soil survey technical publications. (5) Train soil scientists and related professionals in soils as landscape and geomorphic entities. 629.1 Responsibilities This glossary serves as the official NCSS reference for landform, geologic, and related terms. The staff of the National Soil Survey Center, located in Lincoln, NE, is responsible for maintaining and updating this glossary. Soil Science Division staff and NCSS participants are encouraged to propose additions and changes to the glossary for use in pedon descriptions, soil map unit descriptions, and soil survey publications. The Glossary of Geology (GG, 2005) serves as a major source for many glossary terms. The American Geologic Institute (AGI) granted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) permission (in letters dated September 11, 1985, and September 22, 1993) to use existing definitions. Sources of, and modifications to, original definitions are explained immediately below. 629.2 Definitions A. Reference Codes Sources from which definitions were taken, whole or in part, are identified by a code (e.g., GG) following each definition.
    [Show full text]