@inbook {51361,
	title = {Plio-Pleistocene pumice floods in the ancestral Rio Grande, southern Rio Grande rift, USA},
	booktitle = {Sedimentary Geology},
	volume = {103},
	year = {1996},
	note = {//LOCAL,USDA//LTER-III//ProCite field[6]: In},
	month = {1996},
	pages = {1-8},
	publisher = {Elsevier Science B.V.},
	organization = {Elsevier Science B.V.},
	address = {Amsterdam, the Netherlands},
	abstract = {<p>At least four times during the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene pyroclastic eruptions in the Jemez volcanic field, northern Rio Grande rift, flooded the ancestral Rio Grande with gravel-size pumice. Following as much as 400 km of fluvial transport, the pumice was deposited in beds 0.2 to 2.0 m thick in the Camp Rice Formation of the southern Rio Grande rift. A combination of reversal magnetostratigraphy and single-crystal sanidine 40Ar/39Ar dating constrains the ages of pumice-clast conglomerates at 3.1, ~ 2.0, 1.6, and 1.6 Ma. The coarsest pumice beds (cobbles, boulders) were deposited as antidune-like bedforms in a fluvial channel and as a crevasse-play sheet. Granule and pebble-sized pumice was deposited as dune bedforms in a fluvial channels and as ripple bedforms on the floodplain. The abundance of pumice clasts in the gravel fraction (60-100\%) suggest very rapid transport downriver, probably in a few days or weeks. The two older pumice-clast conglomerates correlate with the Puye Formation in the Jemez volcanic field, whereas the younger two are coeval to the Lower Bandelier Tuff and Cerro Toledo Rhyolite.</p>
},
	keywords = {book, books, chapter, chapters, geomorphology, processes, geomorphology, pumice flood, pumice flood, report, reports, volcano, pumice flood},
	doi = {10.1016/0037-0738(96)00009-7},
	url = {files/bibliography/JRN00215.pdf},
	author = {Greg H. Mack and McIntosh, William C. and Leeder, Michael R. and Curtis H. Monger},
	editor = {Crook, K.A.W. and Miall, A.D. and Sellwood, B.W.}
}
@article {51493,
	title = {Classification of paleosols},
	journal = {Geological Society of America Bulletin},
	volume = {105},
	year = {1993},
	note = {//LOCAL//NONE//},
	month = {1993},
	pages = {129-136},
	abstract = {Despite increased interest in paleosols during the past decade, no satisfactory classification is in current use.  Presented here is a largely descriptive classification system that utilizes those pedogenic features that have the highest perservation potential in the rock record.  Emphasized in the classification are morphological and mineralogical features that are easily recognizable in the field and through the petrographic microscope.  The classification is based on evaluation of the relative prominence in a plaeosol of six pedogenic features or processes: organic matter content, horizonation, redox conditions, in situ mineral alteration, illuviation of unsoluble minerals/compounds, and accumulation of soluable minerals.  The most prominent of these six features/processes provides the key to classifying a paleosol into one of nine orders.  Four of the order names are borrowed from Soil Taxonomy (Histosol, Spodosol, Oxisol, Vertisol), whereas the other five order names ore presented here for the first time (Calcisol, Gypsisol, Gleysol, Argillisol, Protosol).  The orders may be preceded by one or more subordinate modifiers that describe other important features of the paleosol.  The classification is relatively easy to apply to the rock record and should enhance communication and aid in the standardization of terminology.},
	keywords = {article, articles, geomorphology, paleosols, journal, journals, paleosols, classification, soil, paleosols},
	author = {Greg H. Mack and Calvin W. James and Curtis H. Monger}
}
