Accretion-gley and the gumbotil dilemma

Clicks: 1
ID: 305447
1960
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #8,376 of 8,486 articles by views in american journal of science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 8,486 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Inclusion of materials of different origins under the terms gley and \"gumbotil\" has led to misinterpretations and to confusion. It is suggested that in Pleistocene geology the term \"gley\" be used only for the gleyed material in a developed soil profile, and the term \"accretion-gley\" be used to designate deposited materials. It is further suggested that the term \"gumbotil\" be restricted in application to materials developed in situ. If such a restriction is not generally accepted, the term \"gumbotil\" should be abandoned.
Reference Key
openalex_W2167869235 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors John C. Frye, G. E. Ekblaw, Parker Shaffer, Harold Bowen Willman
Journal american journal of science
Year 1960
DOI
10.2475/ajs.258.3.185
URL
https://ajs.scholasticahq.com/article/58795.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.