Spelling suggestions: "subject:"pocket gopherus"" "subject:"pocket gopher""
1 |
Relation of the northern pocket gopher to forest habitats in south-central Oregon /Anderson, Robert John. January 1976 (has links)
Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 1977. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the World Wide Web.
|
2 |
The feeding habits of the Mazama pocket gopher in the pine region of South-Central Oregon /Burton, Douglas Harlow. January 1976 (has links)
Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 1977. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the World Wide Web.
|
3 |
Annual reproductive cycle of the male pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis).Ewel, Katherine Carter, January 1970 (has links)
Thesis--University of Florida. / Manuscript copy. Vita. Description based on print version record. Bibliography: leaves 61-63.
|
4 |
Distribution and taxonomy of the small pocket gophers of northwestern OregonWalker, Kenneth Merriam 04 1900 (has links)
Graduation date: 1955
|
5 |
Systematics and zoogeography of fossil and recent pocket gophers in FloridaWilkins, Kenneth T., January 1982 (has links)
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982. / Description based on print version record. Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 199-207).
|
6 |
Studies on the reproductive cycle of the pocket gopher Geomys bursarius (Shaw)Casey, Robert Bell. January 1933 (has links)
Call number: LD2668 .T4 1933 C32
|
7 |
Plant colonization of gopher mounds in adjacent pasture and prairie communitiesMacdonald, Catherine A. 02 June 1989 (has links)
I used field experiments to study how plants in two grassland communities colonized
soil mounds made by the Camas pocket gopher, Thomomys bulbivorus (Richardson). I
identified potential mound colonizers in each source of colonization (buried propagule bank,
seed rain, and established vegetation) and then measured species specific rates of
colonization on mounds built by T. bulbivorus. By selectively eliminating different avenues
of colonization on artificial mounds, I estimated the relative and combined effects of
colonization from (1) germination and growth of buried viable seeds and growth of root
fragments in the soil; (2) germination of seeds raining onto the mounds; (3) emergence of
buried vegetation and, (4) encroachment and establishment of adjacent vegetation. Artificial
mounds were good mimics of mounds built by T. bulbivorus judged by their similarity in
colonization rates and composition of colonizing species. I repeated the investigation in
adjacent pasture and prairie communities differing in species composition and abundances
to compare the effects of these differences on the colonization process.
Composition and abundance of species in the expressed and potential vegetation varied
considerably between pasture and prairie as did the two communities' response to identical
gopher disturbances. Percent cover of vegetation on mounds increased 3 times faster in the
Composition and abundance of species in the expressed and potential vegetation
varied considerably between pasture and prairie as did the two communities'
response to identical gopher disturbances. Percent cover of vegetation on mounds
increased 3 times faster in the pasture than the prairie; and vegetation on and off
mounds in the pasture was more alike (71% Similarity) than vegetation on and off
mounds in the prairie (50% Similarity).
Despite these differences, the relative contribution of each source of
colonization was strikingly similar in the two communities. Vegetative
encroachment and emergence contributed more to overall colonization rates (76%
in the pasture; 75% in the prairie) than did establishment from seeds or buried
root fragments. Emergence from underneath the mounds was favored by the
shallow depth of mounds, minimal alteration of the substrate associated with mound
building, and dominance of perennial species with erect growth forms. The small
area and high perimeter to surface area ratio resulted in a high percent
colonization from encroachment of surrounding vegetation. Colonization from the
rain and bank contributed less to mound closure and may have been limited by a
low abundance of propagules in those two sources.
Successful colonists differed in their patterns of colonization. Festuca rubra,
Agoseris heterophylla, Plantago lanceolata and Prune lla vulgaris colonized almost
exclusively via emergence. Fragaria virginiana colonized by the extension of stolons
both onto (encroachment) and up through mounds (emergence). Colonization from
the seed rain was important in many annual species, such as Ranunculus
occidentalis, Clarkia quadrivulnera, and Sherardia arvensis and the biennial species,
Hypericum perforatum. One annual species, Cynosurus echinatus colonized to
some degree from several modes of colonization. Mound disturbances had greater
forb and annual species cover in both communities than was represented in the
background vegetation, although the difference was much greater in the prairie.
Results of this and other studies of gopher disturbance suggest that the
relative abundance of perennials and annuals, evenness of species abundance and
competitive relationships can help to predict patterns of colonization and effects of
gopher mounds on community diversity. / Graduation date: 1991
|
8 |
Taxonomy and distribution of pocket gophers (Genus Thomomys) in Southeastern ArizonaLange, Kenneth I. January 1958 (has links)
No description available.
|
9 |
Variation in a restricted population of the Valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae)Dingman, Ross Evan, 1928- January 1966 (has links)
No description available.
|
10 |
The Thomomys mazama pocket gopher in Washington prairies a contemporary view for management /Knudsen, Cynthia J. January 2003 (has links) (PDF)
Thesis (M.E.S.)--Evergreen State College, 2003. / Title from title screen viewed (3/30/2009). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 66-78).
|
Page generated in 0.0558 seconds