Activity and Burrow Structure of Attwater's Pocket Gopher (Geomys attwateri)

Cameron, Guy N.; Spencer, Stephen R.; Eshelman, Bruce D.; Williams, Lawrence R.; Gregory, Michael J.

doi:10.2307/1381621

Cited by 65 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results support the notion that ''a behavioral response to increased light intensity suggests to us adaptation to reliable environmental cues'' [3]. Light and darkness have been suggested to have no effect on pocket gopher activity [5] since Thomomys [6] and Geomys [7,8] pocket gophers have been observed to be active during all hours of the day.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Light and temperature were varied independently in Experiment 2, with two levels of light (presence and absence), and three levels of temperature (7,18, and 31 -C). The 7 and 31 -C treatments were housed within insulated boxes (1.5 Â 0.8 Â 0.8 m) to facilitate thermal maintenance during the 12-h trial.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the low variation in burrow temperatures relative to the terrestrial thermal dynamic (Fig. 2) is influenced by the insulating properties of the soil [7] and, thus, burrow plugging. We conclude that the presence of light and low ambient temperatures induce burrow maintenance, thus limiting adverse conditions to the internal and external environs of pocket gophers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Proximal cues of pocket gopher burrow plugging behavior: Influence of light, burrow openings, and temperature

Werner¹,

Nolte²,

Provenza³

2005

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Burrow plugging is readily observed among mammals adapted for digging (i.e., fossorial mammals) as they create and maintain their burrows. We investigated the influence of light, burrow openings, and thermal environment as cues of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama, Thomomys talpoides) behavior. When given free access to light and no light during artificial-burrow preference trials, both Thomomys spp. consistently plugged (i.e., avoided) light treatments. Burrow openings did not notably affect plugging behavior of T. mazama. Gophers (T. talpoides) plugged the artificial burrows within the light and cold (7 -C) treatments, but not within the no-light, and 18 or 31 -C treatments when light and temperature were varied independently. Whereas the presence of light and low ambient temperatures induce burrow maintenance by pocket gophers, these cues help meliorate adverse conditions within subsurface environs. D

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proximal cues of pocket gopher burrow plugging behavior: Influence of light, burrow openings, and temperature

Werner¹,

Nolte²,

Provenza³

2005

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While population sizes are directly related to ground cover [Davis et al, 1938], local abundance is highest in their preferred habitat of grassland ecosystems. Cover type, as opposed to cover architecture, appears to most influence burrow abundance and pattern [Cameron et al, 1988]. Marginal habitats, with relatively sparse populations of grasses, such as those at the NTS, support lower densities of burrowing mammals than preferred habitats with higher grass coverage [Bandoli, 1981].…”

Section: -64mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mammal burrow systems are basically linear, with a main tunnel, many short lateral foraging tunnels, and a deeper nest chamber that subtends the other tunnels [Cameron et al, 1988]. Feeding tunnels run parallel to the surface, with tunnel-to-surface depths determined by soil texture, horizon thickness, water table height, and depth of penetrating roots (their primary food source).…”

Section: Burrow Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance Assessment Document for the Transuranic Wastes in the Greater Confinement Disposal Boreholes at the Nevada Test Site, Volume 2: Performance Assessment

Cochran¹,

Beyeler²,

Brosseau³

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intermediate depth disposal operations were conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) at the DOE's Nevada Test Site (NTS) from 1984 through 1989. These operations emplaced highspecific activity low-level wastes (LLW) and limited quantities of classified, "special case" transuranic (TRU) wastes in 37 m (120-ft) deep, 3 m (10 ft) diameter Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) boreholes.Four boreholes contain about 60,000 kg (132,000 lb.) of classified TRU waste packages, containing less than 330 curies of Plutonium-239. All of the TRU wastes emplaced in the GCD boreholes are classified for national security reasons and cannot be disposed of in the DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 40 CFR 191 defines the requirements for protection of human health from disposed TRU wastes. This EPA standard sets a number of requirements, including probabilistic limits on the cumulative releases of radionuclides to the accessible environment for 10,000 years. This report presents the performance assessment (PA) that has been conducted to determine if disposal of TRU waste in the GCD boreholes complies with the EPA's 40 CFR 191 requirements.Sandia National Laboratories completed this PA using all available information and an Iterative PA Methodology, which focused work on uncertainty reduction in a cost-effective fashion that does not overestimate system performance and assured defensibility. The simplicity of the conceptual models of the GCD disposal system allowed them to be implemented in Microsoft ® Visual Basic™ macros in an Access™ database. This PA model is built from a mathematical expression for mass conservation that includes the operation of a number of transport processes, including dissolution, precipitation, reversible chemical sorption onto soil, advection, diffusion, dispersion, radioactive decay and ingrowth, plant uptake, and bioturbation. The mathematical model and implementing code was used to calculate a complementary cumulative distribution function of integrated normalized release to the accessible environment for 10,000 years and probability distributions of dose based on two exposure conditions for the 1,000 year individual protection requirements.The primary conclusions of this PA are that the disposal of TRU wastes in the GCD boreholes will, at most, result in minuscule doses to individuals, and that the GCD disposal system easily meets the EPA's 1985, 40 CFR 191 requirements for disposal of TRU waste. Further, there is a strong, reasonable expectation that actual system performance will be better than what is simulated in this PA.vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

show abstract

Why animals construct helical burrows: Construction vs. post‐construction benefits

Doody,

Shukla,

Hasiotis

2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extended phenotype of helical burrowing behavior in animals has evolved independently many times since the Cambrian explosion (~540 million years ago [MYA]). A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the evolution of helical burrowing in certain taxa, but no study has searched for a general explanation encompassing all taxa. We reviewed helical burrowing in both extant and extinct animals and from the trace fossil record and compiled 10 hypotheses for why animals construct helical burrows, including our own ideas. Of these, six are post‐construction hypotheses—benefits to the creator or offspring, realized after burrow construction—and four are construction hypotheses reflecting direct benefits to the creator during construction. We examine the fit of these hypotheses to a total of 21 extant taxa and ichnotaxa representing 59–184 possible species. Only two hypotheses, antipredator and biomechanical advantage, cannot be rejected for any species (possible in 100% of taxa), but six of the hypotheses cannot be rejected for most species (possible in 86%–100% of taxa): microclimate buffer, reduced falling sediment (soil), anticrowding, and vertical patch. Four of these six are construction hypotheses, raising the possibility that helical burrowing may have evolved without providing post‐construction benefits. Our analysis shows that increased drainage, deposit feeding, microbial farming, and offspring escape cannot explain helical burrowing behavior in the majority of taxa (5%–48%). Overall, the evidence does not support a general explanation for the evolution of helical burrowing in animals. The function and evolution of the helix as an extended phenotype seems to provide different advantages for different taxa in different environments under different physicochemical controls (some traces/tracemakers are discussed in more detail due to their association with body fossils and well‐constrained physicochemical parameters). Although direct tests of many of the hypotheses would be difficult, we nevertheless offer ways to test some of the hypotheses for selected taxa.

show abstract

Activity and Burrow Structure of Attwater's Pocket Gopher (Geomys attwateri)

Cited by 65 publications

References 11 publications

Proximal cues of pocket gopher burrow plugging behavior: Influence of light, burrow openings, and temperature

Proximal cues of pocket gopher burrow plugging behavior: Influence of light, burrow openings, and temperature

Compliance Assessment Document for the Transuranic Wastes in the Greater Confinement Disposal Boreholes at the Nevada Test Site, Volume 2: Performance Assessment

Why animals construct helical burrows: Construction vs. post‐construction benefits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About