Factors controlling upper Jurassic ammonite assemblages in north-central Mexico

Lower Kimmeridgian to Lower Tithonian (Upper Jurassic) sections studied at Sierra de Palotes (Durango) and Sierra de Catorce (San Luis Potosí), Mexico, show low-energy deposits in which the composition of fossil macroinvertebrate assemblages, including megabenthos, reflects biostratinomic control. Monotonous siltstones provide continuous records of ammonite assemblages and reflect dominant deposition of shells in living areas; meanwhile, discontinues records were forced by episodic post-mortem transportation of shells, which was especially accentuated under storm influence. Rhythmic marly-silty limestones and marls illustrate a fossil record probably determined by minor transgressive-regressive pulses. The major changes in lithofacies are reflected by condensed silty and phosphatic mudstones deposited during significant floodings affecting areas under dominant terrigenous sedimentation. These changes determined more or less significant variations in the composition of fossil assemblages according to their relation to changing ecological conditions. However, shifting ecospaces exhibit no direct relationship to changes in lithofacies. Post-mortem transportation, operating in relation to both marine floodings and changes in the pattern of upper-water currents, was the main biostratinomic factor affecting the areal distribution of ammonite populations. Shell transportation and sedimentation rate controlled preservation and ultimately influenced diversity in recorded ammonite assemblages. The post-mortem behaviour (interpreted from shell structure and preservation), and therefore distribution, of ammonite shells points to shallow-water environments during the Kimmeridgian - Early Tithonian in areas (such as SE Durango and San Luís Potosí) close to the changing boundary between dominant carbonate and terrigenous sedimentation. No reworking affecting ammonite biostratigraphy has been identified in the sections studied.     

Ecological and environmental footprint of 50 years of agricultural expansion in Argentina

Agriculture expanded during the last 50 years from the Pampas to NW Argentina at the expense of natural forests and rangelands. In parallel, productivity was boosted through the increasing application of external inputs, modern technology and management practices. This study evaluated the impact of agricultural expansion between 1960 and 2005 by assessing the implications of land use, technology and management changes on (i) carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) stocks in soil and biomass, (ii) energy, C, N, P and water fluxes and (iii) water pollution, soil erosion, habitat intervention and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (impacts). Based on different data sources, these issues were assessed over～1.5 million km² (63% of Argentina), involving 399 political districts during three representative periods: 1956–1960, 1986–1990 and 2001–2005. The ecological and environmental performance of 1197 farming system types was evaluated through the AgroEcoIndex model, which quantified the stocks, fluxes and impacts mentioned above. Cultivation of natural ecosystems and farming intensification caused a noticeable increase of productivity, a strengthening of energy flux, an opening of matter cycles (C, N, P) and a negative impact on habitats and GHGs emission. However, due to the improved tillage practices and the application of less aggressive pesticides, erosion and pollution risk are today lower than those of the mid‐20th century. The consistency of some assumptions and results were checked through uncertainty analysis. Comparing our results with international figures, some impacts (e.g. soil erosion, nutrient balance, energy use) were less significant than those recorded in intensive‐farming countries like China, Japan, New Zealand, USA, or those of Western Europe, showing that farmers in Argentina developed the capacity to produce under relatively low‐input/low‐impact schemes during the last decades. [Correction added after online publication 4 October 2010: In the first sentence of the Abstract, NE was corrected to NW.]