Size Spectra of the edaphic fauna of Argiudol typical soils of the rolling Pampa region, Argentina

Enregistrements de données

Les données de cette ressource occurrence ont été publiées sous forme d'une Archive Darwin Core (Darwin Core Archive ou DwC-A), le format standard pour partager des données de biodiversité en tant qu'ensemble d'un ou plusieurs tableurs de données. Le tableur de données du cœur de standard (core) contient 8 662 enregistrements.

1 tableurs de données d'extension existent également. Un enregistrement d'extension fournit des informations supplémentaires sur un enregistrement du cœur de standard (core). Le nombre d'enregistrements dans chaque tableur de données d'extension est illustré ci-dessous.

Cet IPT archive les données et sert donc de dépôt de données. Les données et métadonnées de la ressource sont disponibles pour téléchargement dans la section téléchargements. Le tableau des versions liste les autres versions de chaque ressource rendues disponibles de façon publique et permet de tracer les modifications apportées à la ressource au fil du temps.

Versions

Le tableau ci-dessous n'affiche que les versions publiées de la ressource accessibles publiquement.

Comment citer

Les chercheurs doivent citer cette ressource comme suit:

Velazco V N, Sandler R, Sanabria M C V, Coviella C E, Falco L B, Saravia L A (2023). Size Spectra of the edaphic fauna of Argiudol typical soils of the rolling Pampa region, Argentina. Version 1.1. Instituto de Ecologia y Desarrollo Sustentable - Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, UNLu. Occurrence dataset. https://training-ipt-c.gbif.org/resource?r=vnv_soil23&v=1.1

Droits

Les chercheurs doivent respecter la déclaration de droits suivante:

L’éditeur et détenteur des droits de cette ressource est Instituto de Ecologia y Desarrollo Sustentable (INEDES). Ce travail est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0.

Enregistrement GBIF

Cette ressource a été enregistrée sur le portail GBIF, et possède l'UUID GBIF suivante : 6c685c4f-021a-40e2-a8a0-ac0ffc84c215.  Instituto de Ecologia y Desarrollo Sustentable (INEDES) publie cette ressource, et est enregistré dans le GBIF comme éditeur de données avec l'approbation du GBIF Argentina.

Mots-clé

Occurrence; Rolling Pampas;  Morphological traits; Intensities of land use; Soil Fauna; Soil Invertebrates; Acari; Collembola; Earthworms; Body Mass; Body Length;  Body Width; Macrofauna; Mesofauna; Specimen

Contacts

Couverture géographique

The Argentine pampa is a wide plain with more than 54 million hectares, phytogeographically it is located in the Neotropical region, Chaqueño domain, Eastern district of the Pampean province and therefore the dominant vegetation is the steppe or pseudo-steppe of grasses (Cabrera AL 1976, Oyarzabal M et al. 2018). The climate is temperate and with relatively high humidity throughout the year, periodically interrupted by droughts derived from El Niño and La Niña. The so-called wavy pampa is the most fertile and productive zone in the region, where more than 80% of the land is dedicated to the production of agricultural crops. The soils of the Pampa have relatively few limitations for crop production and are suitable for livestock. They are deep, well-drained soils, do not offer limitations for root growth, and have a good organic matter content (Cabrera and Willink 1973). The fields where all the samples were taken are located in the districts of Chivilcoy (60 m.s.n.m. Lat: 35° 8'1.85"S and 34°51'48.47"S; Long: 59°44'41.37" W and 60°13'10.51" W) and Navarro (43 m.s.n.m. Lat: 34°49'12.72"S; Long: 59°10'14.00" W) in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The fields with agricultural use are located within a radius of no more than 5 km from each other, the mixed fields that implement livestock and pasture cultivation are within a radius of less than 7 km, and two of the three pastures are contiguous while the The third is about 37 km. These distances in the Humid Pampa are practically irrelevant in terms of climate or elevation, the soils in all the sampled sites correspond to Argiudols typical (USDA 2014) of the Henry Bell and Lobos series(CIRN 2022).

Couverture taxonomique

The edaphic fauna organisms were classified into different taxonomic categories. The identification of organisms stored in 70% alcohol was carried out with the support of taxonomic keys.  The mites were identified up to superfamilies (Balogh and Balogh 1988, Balogh and Balogh 1972, Burges and Raw 1967, Dindal 1990, Evans and Till 1979, Krantz and Walter 2009, Momo and Falco 2009), the springtails were identified up to the family level (Claps et al. 2020, Janssens , Momo and Falco 2009), the earthworms, down to species (de Michis and Moreno 1999, Reynolds 1996, Satchell 1983), and the macrofauna was identified in different taxonomic ranks, whether they are classes, orders, or families (Choate 1999, Claps et al. 2020, Dindal 1990, Klimaszewiski and Watt 1997, Vargas et al. 2014).

Couverture temporelle

Données sur le projet

The project focuses on the characterization of edaphic fauna on Argiudol soils of the rolling pampas, one of the most fertile and extensive agricultiural plains in the world, under three intensities of human impact. By measuring the individuals found over a two year sampling period, and calculating their biomass, we strive to estimate energy flux through different parts of the edaphic fauna, and to estimate community stability. In this work, we present the complete dataset collected for the project. To our knowledge, there is no other dataset for the rolling pampas showing edaphic fauna biomass for the different traits found. In this document we present the list of taxa of springtails (Entognatha: Colembolla), mites (Aracnida: Acari), earthworms (Oligochaeta: Crassiclitellata) and other macrofauna that occur in typical argiudol soils under three use systems that differ by the time of agricultural use, located in the Pampa ondulada region. This list has individual measurements of the main morphological traits of each of the mentioned taxa, there are measurements of body length, body width and estimated body weight for each organism.

Les personnes impliquées dans le projet:

Méthodes d'échantillonnage

For each land use system, 3 different sites in separate fields were selected as replicates. In each replica, 3 sampling points were randomly located and then georeferenced to return to the same site on each sampling date. The samplings were carried out once a season for 2 years. Soil subsamples with cores of 5 cm in diameter and 10 cm deep were taken at each sampling point. Subsequently, the sample was homogenized and taken to the laboratory for the extraction of edaphic microarthropods using the flotation technique. In addition, at each sampling point, a 25x25 cm by 25 cm deep monolith was taken for the manual extraction of earthworms and other macrofauna organisms. The collected organisms were stored in 70% alcohol until their identification under a binocular microscope (Moreira et al. 2012Vargas and Recamier 2007).

Description des étapes de la méthode:

1. The edaphic microarthropods were extracted using the flotation technique, for which the homogenized sample was disaggregated and placed under water flow so that they pass through sieves with a 4 mm and 2 mm mesh opening, the soil that passed through the meshes was mixed in 2:1 ratio with a 1.2% magnesium sulfate solution. The solution is allowed to settle for a few minutes until the mineral fraction of the soil settles and the supernatant in which the arthropods float is collected with a 98 um diameter sieve and stored in 70% alcohol until observation. The collected supernatant was observed using a Leica S8P0 binocular microscope, and with the help of fine brushes and thin needles, the microarthropods were extracted and stored in 70º alcohol until their identification.
2. The identification of mites, springtails and worms and other fauna was carried out using taxonomic keys. After the identification, the body weights of the edaphic organisms were estimated, all of them expressed in micrograms of dry weight (Newton and Proctor 2013, Ganigar 1997). The earthworms were weighed to obtain the fresh weight and the dry weight was taken with a factor of 0.15.
3. The other organisms were measured one by one through photographs taken with a Leica S8P0 microscope with a built-in digital camera and whose rasters include a measurement scale depending on the configuration of the optical system at the time of capture (Leica Application Suite V4.4). Once the images were obtained, the ImageJ tool (Rasband 2018, Gonzales 2018) was used and the measurements of the body length and width of each of the individuals in micrometers were obtained.
4. Following this, several published linear equations relating body length and width were used to estimate the body weight of the organisms (Coulis and Joly 2017, Greiner et al. 2010, Hale et al. 2004, Hawkins et al. 1997, Lebrum 1971a, Lebrum 1971b, Persson and Lohm 1977, Tanaka 1970). The length-width equations are general but vary by taxonomic group and also by the general shape that may exist within the taxonomic group. A total of 8662 specimens were measured individually.
5. Finally, with the estimated body weights of the different taxa of edaphic organisms, all of them expressed in micrograms of dry weight, the size spectrum of the soil fauna community can be described.

Données de collection

Citations bibliographiques

1. Balogh J, Balogh P (1988) Oribatid mites of the Neotropical Region. I. Oribatid mites of the Neotropical Region. I. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/ 19881108205
2. Balogh P, Balogh J (1972) The oribatid genera of the world. The oribatid genera of the world. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19720503787
3. Briones M (2014) Soil fauna and soil functions: a jigsaw puzzle. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00007
4. Brussaard L (2012) The Living Soil and Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem Services Provided by the Soil Biota. Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. [ISBN 978-0-19-957592-3]
5. Burges A, Raw F (Eds) (1967) Soil Biology. Academic Press, London, UK, 524 pp
6. Butcher JW, Snider RJ (1971) Bioecology of edaphic Collembola and Acarina. Annual review of entomology[In en].
7. Cabrera A, Willink A (1973) Biogeografía de America Latina. Programa Regional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico. Departamento de Asuntos Científicos. Secretaría General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos. Serie de Biología. Monografía nro. 23.
8. Caruso T, Migliorini M (2009) Euclidean geometry explains why lengths allow precise body mass estimates in terrestrial invertebrates: The case of oribatid mites. Journal of Theoretical Biology 256 (3): 436‑440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.09.033
9. Choate (1999) Introduction to the identification of beetles (Coleoptera). Dichotomous keys to some families of Florida Coleoptera.
10. CIRN IdS (2022) Cartas de Suelos República Argentina - Provincia de Buenos Aires. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6353509
11. Claps LE, Debandi G, Roig-Juñent S (Eds) (2020) Biodiversidad de Artrópodos Argentinos. 2. Sociedad Entomológica Argentina ediciones, Mendoza, Argentina, 620 pp. [In es]. [ISBN 978-987-21319-3-7]
12. Coulis M, Joly F (2017) Allometric equations for estimating fresh biomass of five soil macroinvertebrate species from neotropical agroecosystems. European Journal of Soil Biology 83: 18‑26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2017.09.006
13. de Michis CC, Moreno AG (1999) Taxonomía de Oligoquetos: Criterios y Metodologías. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
14. Dindal D (1990) Soil Biology Guide. Jonh Wiley & Sons
15. Eisenbeis G, Wichard W (1987) Atlas on the Biology of Soil Arthropods. 1ra. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
16. Evans GO, Till WM (1979) Mesostigmatic mites of Britain and Ireland (Chelicerata: Acari-Parasitifrmes). An introduction to their external morphology and classification. Transactions of the Zoological Societi of London 35: 139‑270.
17. Gonzales AM (2018) ImageJ: una herramienta indispensable para medir el mundo biológico. Folium - Relatos Botánicos 1 (1-17).
18. Greiner H, Costello D, Tiegs S (2010) Allometric estimation of earthworm ash-free dry mass from diameters and lengths of select megascolecid and lumbricid species. Pedobiologia 53 (4): 247‑252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2009.12.004
19. Hale C, Reich P, Frelich L (2004) Allometric Equations for Estimation of Ash-Free Dry Mass from Length Measurements for Selected European Earthworm Species (Lumbricidae) in the Western Great Lakes Region. The American Midland Naturalist 151 (1): 179‑185. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3566800
20. Hawkins JW, Lankester MW, Lautenschlager RA, Bell FW (1997) Length–biomass and energy relationships of terrestrial gastropods in northern forest ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75 (3): 501‑505. https://doi.org/10.1139/z97-061
21. Hishi T, Fujii S, Saitoh S, Yoshida T, Hasegawa M () Taxonomy, Distribution, and Trait Data Sets of Japanese Collembola. https://db.cger.nies.go.jp/JaLTER/ ER_DataPapers/archives/2019/ERDP-2019-03/metadata
22. Janssens F () Checklist of the Collembola of the World. https:// www.collembola.org/
23. Jonsson T, Cohen J, Carpenter S (2005) Food webs, body size, and species abundance in ecological community description. Food webs: from connectivity to energetics. 36. [ISBN 978-0-12-013936-1].
24. Kampichler C (1995) Biomass distribution of a microarthropod community in spruce forest soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 19: 263‑265. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00336170
25. Klimaszewiski J, Watt JC (1997) Coleoptera: family-group review and keys to identification. Manaaki Whenua PRESS
26. Krantz GW, Walter DE (Eds) (2009) a manual of Acarology. 3. Texas Tech University Press, 81 pp.
27. Lavelle P, Allister VS (Eds) (2001) Soil Ecology. 1. Kluwer Academic Publisher, 654 pp. [ISBN 0-306-48162-6]
28. Lavelle P, Decaëns T, Aubert M, Barot S, Blouin M, Bureau F, Margerie P, Mora P, Rossi J- (2006) Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Biology 42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.10.002
29. Lavelle P (2012) The Living Soil and Ecosystem Services: Soil as Habitat. Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. [ISBN 978-0-19-957592-3].
30. Lebrum P (1971a) Ecologie et biocénotique de quelques peuplements d'arthropodes édaphiques. Institut Royal de Science Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles.
31. Lebrum P (1971b) Ecologie et biocénotique de quelques peuplements d'arthropodes édaphiques. Institut Royal de Science Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles
32. Le Guillarme N, Hedde M, Potapov AM, Berg MP, Briones MJ, Calderón-Sanou I, Hoberg K, Almoyna CM, Martínez-Muños C, Pey B, Russell DJ, Thuiller W (2023) The Soil Food Web Ontology: aligning trophic groups, processes, and resources to harmonise and automatise soil food web reconstructions. bioRxiv[In en]. https://doi.org/ 10.1101/2023.02.03.526812
33. Mittelbach G, McGill B (2019) Community assembly and species traits. Community Ecology. [ISBN 978-0-19-883585-1]. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/10.1093/oso/ 9780198835851.001.0001/oso-9780198835851-chapter-12
34. Momo FR, Falco LB (Eds) (2009) Biología y Ecología de la fauna del suelo. 1ra. Imago Mundi, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 186 pp. [ISBN 978-950-793-094-2] www.ungs.edu.ar/publicaciones
35. Moreira FMS, Huising EJ, Bignell DE (Eds) (2012) Manual de Biología de Suelos Tropicales: Muestreo y caracterización de la biodiversidad bajo suelo. 1ra. Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Mexico, 337 pp. [In es]. [ISBN 978-607-7908-31-9]
36. Moretti M, Dias AC, Bello F, Altermatt F, Chown S, Azcárate F, Bell J, Fournier B, Hedde M, Hortal J, Ibanez S, Öckinger E, Sousa JP, Ellers J, Berg M (2017) Handbook of protocols for standardized measurement of terrestrial invertebrate functional traits. Functional Ecology 31 (3): 558‑567. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12776
37. Newton J, Proctor H (2013) A fresh look at weight-estimation models for soil mites (Acari). International Journal of Acarology 39 (1): 72‑85. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01647954.2012.744351
38. Paoletti M (1999) The role of earthworms for assessment of sustainability and as bioindicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 74 (1): 137‑155. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00034-1
39. Persson T, Lohm U (1977) Energetical significance of the annelids and arthropods in a Swedish grassland soil. Swedish Natural Science Research Council, Stockholm.
40. Petchey O, Belgrano A (2010) Body-size distributions and size-spectra: universal indicators of ecological status? Biology Letters 6 (4): 434‑437. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rsbl.2010.0240
41. Peters RH (Ed.) (1999) The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge University Press [In en]. [ISBN 978-0-521-28886-]
42. Pey B, Nahmani J, Auclerc A, Capowiez Y, Cluzeau D, Cortet J, Decaëns T, Deharveng L, Dubs F, Joimel S, Briard C, Grumiaux F, Laporte M, Pasquet A, Pelosi C, Pernin C, Ponge J, Salmon S, Santorufo L, Hedde M (2014) Current use of and future needs for soil invertebrate functional traits in community ecology. Basic and Applied Ecology 15 (3): 194‑206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.03.007
43. Phillips HP, Bach E, Bartz MC, Bennett J, Beugnon R, Briones MI, Brown G, Ferlian O, Gongalsky K, Guerra C, König-Ries B, Krebs J, Orgiazzi A, Ramirez K, Russell D, Schwarz B, Wall D, Brose U, Decaëns T, Lavelle P, Loreau M, Mathieu J, Mulder C, van der Putten W, Rillig M, Thakur M, de Vries F, Wardle D, Ammer C, Ammer S, Arai M, Ayuke F, Baker G, Baretta D, Barkusky D, Beauséjour R, Bedano J, Birkhofer K, Blanchart E, Blossey B, Bolger T, Bradley R, Brossard M, Burtis J, Capowiez Y, Cavagnaro T, Choi A, Clause J, Cluzeau D, Coors A, Crotty F, Crumsey J, Dávalos A, Cosín DD, Dobson A, Domínguez A, Duhour AE, van Eekeren N, Emmerling C, Falco L, Fernández R, Fonte S, Fragoso C, Franco AC, Fusilero A, Geraskina A, Gholami S, González G, Gundale M, López MG, Hackenberger B, Hackenberger D, Hernández L, Hirth J, Hishi T, Holdsworth A, Holmstrup M, Hopfensperger K, Lwanga EH, Huhta V, Hurisso T, IannonPhillips HP, Bach E, Bartz MC, Bennett J, Beugnon R, Briones MI, Brown G, Ferlian O, Gongalsky K, Guerra C, König-Ries B, Krebs J, Orgiazzi A, Ramirez K, Russell D, Schwarz B, Wall D, Brose U, Decaëns T, Lavelle P, Loreau M, Mathieu J, Mulder C, van der Putten W, Rillig M, Thakur M, de Vries F, Wardle D, Ammer C, Ammer S, Arai M, Ayuke F, Baker G, Baretta D, Barkusky D, Beauséjour R, Bedano J, Birkhofer K, Blanchart E, Blossey B, Bolger T, Bradley R, Brossard M, Burtis J, Capowiez Y, Cavagnaro T, Choi A, Clause J, Cluzeau D, Coors A, Crotty F, Crumsey J, Dávalos A, Cosín DD, Dobson A, Domínguez A, Duhour AE, van Eekeren N, Emmerling C, Falco L, Fernández R, Fonte S, Fragoso C, Franco AC, Fusilero A, Geraskina A, Gholami S, González G, Gundale M, López MG, Hackenberger B, Hackenberger D, Hernández L, Hirth J, Hishi T, Holdsworth A, Holmstrup M, Hopfensperger K, Lwanga EH, Huhta V, Hurisso T, Iannone B, Iordache M, Irmler U, Ivask M, Jesús J, Johnson-Maynard J, Joschko M, Kaneko N, Kanianska R, Keith A, Kernecker M, Koné A, Kooch Y, Kukkonen S, Lalthanzara H, Lammel D, Lebedev I, Le Cadre E, Lincoln N, López-Hernández D, Loss S, Marichal R, Matula R, Minamiya Y, Moos JH, Moreno G, Morón-Ríos A, Motohiro H, Muys B, Neirynck J, Norgrove L, Novo M, Nuutinen V, Nuzzo V, Mujeebe B, Iordache M, Irmler U, Ivask M, Jesús J, Johnson-Maynard J, Joschko M, Kaneko N, Kanianska R, Keith A, Kernecker M, Koné A, Kooch Y, Kukkonen S, Lalthanzara H, Lammel D, Lebedev I, Le Cadre E, Lincoln N, López-Hernández D, Loss S, Marichal R, Matula R, Minamiya Y, Moos JH, Moreno G, Morón-Ríos A, Motohiro H, Muys B, Neirynck J, Norgrove L, Novo M, Nuutinen V, Nuzzo V, Mujeeb Rahman P, Pansu J, Paudel S, Pérès G, Pérez-Camacho L, Ponge J, Prietzel J, Rapoport I, Rashid MI, Rebollo S, Rodríguez MÁ, Roth A, Rousseau G, Rozen A, Sayad E, van Schaik L, Scharenbroch B, Schirrmann M, Schmidt O, Schröder B, Seeber J, Shashkov M, Singh J, Smith S, Steinwandter M, Szlavecz K, Talavera JA, Trigo D, Tsukamoto J, Uribe-López S, de Valença A, Virto I, Wackett A, Warren M, Webster E, Wehr N, Whalen J, Wironen M, Wolters V, Wu P, Zenkova I, Zhang W, Cameron E, Eisenhauer N (2021) Global data on earthworm abundance, biomass, diversity and corresponding environmental properties. Scientific Data 8 (1). https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00912-z
44. Potapov A, Klarner B, Sandmann D, Widyastuti R, Scheu S (2019) Linking size spectrum, energy flux and trophic multifunctionality in soil food webs of tropical land-use systems. Journal of Animal Ecology 88 (12): 1845‑1859. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1365-2656.13027
45. Reynolds JW (1996) Earthworms biology and ecology course manual. Oligochetology Laboratory e Canada, Ontario
46. Ritz K, van der Putten W (2012) The Living Soil and Ecosystem Services: Introduction. Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. [ISBN 978-0-19-957592-3].
47. Sandler RV (2019) Indicadores de sustentabilidad del suelo basados en la estructura y funcionamiento de la fauna edafica. Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento
48. Satchell JE (Ed.) (1983) Eartworm Ecology: From Darwin to Vermiculture. Chapman and Hall, 495 pp. [ISBN 0-412-24310-5]
49. Sechi V, De Goede RG, Rutgers M, Brussaard L, Mulder C (2017) A community traitbased approach to ecosystem functioning in soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Enviroment 239: 265‑273.
50. Swift M, Heal O, Anderson J (1979) Decomposition in terrestial ecosystems. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19800665274
51. Tanaka M (1970) Ecological Studies on communities of soil Collembola in Mt. Sobo, Southwest Japan. Japanese Journal of Ecology 20 (3): 102‑103.
52. Turnbull M, George PL, Lindo Z (2014) Weighing in: Size spectra as a standard tool in soil community analyses. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 68: 366‑372. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.019
53. Vargas JGP, Recamier BEM (2007) Técnicas de colecta, montaje y preservación de microartrópodos edáficos. 1 ra. Universidad Autónoma de México, Mexico.
54. Vargas JGP, Recamier BEM, Oyarzabal AD (2014) Guía ilustrada para los artrópodos edáficos. 1ra. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
55. Wallwork J (1958) Notes on the Feeding Behaviour of Some Forest Soil Acarina. Oikos 9 (2). https://doi.org/10.2307/3564770
56. White E, Ernest SKM, Kerkhoff A, Enquist B (2007) Relationships between body size and abundance in ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22 (6): 323‑330. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.03.007
57. Wurst S, De Deyn G, Orwin K, Wall DH (2012) The Living Soil and Ecosystem Services: Soil Biodiversity and Functions. Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, 20 pp. [In en]. [ISBN 978-0-19-957592-3].
58. Zhang Z (2011) Animal biodiversity: an outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness. Magnolia Press, Auckland, N.Z..
59. (2014) Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Soil Survey Staff.
60. (2018) ImageJ. Image Processing and Analysis in Java. U. S. National Institutes of Health. https://imagej.nih.gov/ij
61. Cabrera, A. L. 1976. Regiones fitogeográficas argentinas. Pp. 1-85 en W. F. Kugler (ed.). Enciclopedia Argentina de Agricultura y Jardinería. Tomo 2. 2da edición. Acme, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fascículo 1.
62. Oyarzabal, Mariano, Clavijo, José, Oakley, Luis, Biganzoli, Fernando, Tognetti, Pedro, Barberis, Ignacio, Maturo, Hernán M, Aragón, Roxana, Campanello, Paula I, Prado, Darién, Oesterheld, Martín, & León, Rolando J. C. (2018). Unidades de vegetación de la Argentina. Ecología austral, 28(1), 40-63. http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1667-782X2018000100003&lng=es&tlng=es
63. Ganihar, S. R. (1997). Biomass estimates of terrestrial arthropods based on body length. Journal of Biosciences, 22(2), 219-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02704734

Métadonnées additionnelles