Joseph Grinnell’s 1923 paper on the burrowing effects of pocket gophers is a classic in the literature of zoogeomorphology and ecology. It established the significance of gophers as agents of bioturbation, and provided quantitative data on the amount of sediment moved annually by them. Its citation in other classic bioturbation papers, and the citation of those papers to the present day, indicates its continuing significance as a classic paper in the field.
BurnhamJLHJohnsonDLJohnsonDN (2012) The biodynamic significance of double stone layers in mima mounds. Geological Society of America Special Papers490: 71–84.
2.
ButlerDR (1992) The grizzly bear as an erosional agent in mountainous terrain. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie36(2): 179–89.
3.
ButlerDR (1995) Zoogeomorphology: Animals as Geomorphic Agents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
ButlerDRButlerWD (2009) The geomorphic effects of gophers on soil characteristics and sediment compaction: a case study from alpine treeline, Sangre de Cristo Mountains, Colorado, USA. The Open Geology Journal3: 82–89.
5.
DarwinC (1881) The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms with Observations on Their Habits. London: John Murray.
6.
EllisonL (1946) The pocket gopher in relation to soil erosion on mountain range. Ecology27(2): 101–114.
7.
EnglishPF (1932) Some habits of the pocket gopher, Geomys breviceps breviceps. Journal of Mammalogy13(2): 126–132.
8.
GrinnellH (1940) Joseph Grinnell: 1877–1939. The Condor42: 3–34.
9.
GrinnellJ (1923) The burrowing rodents of California as agents in soil formation. Journal of Mammalogy4(3): 137–149.
10.
HansenRMMorrisMJ (1968) Movement of rocks by northern pocket gophers. Journal of Mammalogy49(3): 391–399.
11.
HoleFD (1981) Effects of animals on soil. Geoderma25(1–2): 75–112.
12.
HuntlyNInouyeR (1988) Pocket gophers in ecosystems: patterns and mechanisms. BioScience38(11): 786–793.
13.
JohnsonDLSchaetzlRJ (2015) Differing views of soil and pedogenesis by two masters: Darwin and Dokuchaev. Geoderma237: 176–189.
14.
KnightJ (2009) Infilled pocket gopher tunnels: seasonal features of high alpine plateaux. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms34(4): 590–595.
15.
LaycockWARichardsonBZ (1975) Long-term effects of pocket gopher control on vegetation and soils of a subalpine grassland. Journal of Range Management28(6): 458–462.
16.
MielkeHW (1977) Mound building by pocket gophers (Geomyidae): their impact on soils and vegetation in North America. Journal of Biogeography4(2): 171–180.
17.
MillerMA (1948) Seasonal trends in burrowing of pocket gophers (Thomomys). Journal of Mammalogy29(1): 38–44.
PriceLW (1971) Geomorphic effect of the arctic ground squirrel in an alpine environment. Geografiska Annaler. Series A. Physical Geography53(2): 100–106.
20.
SmallwoodKSMorrisonML (1999) Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). The Southwestern Naturalist44(2): 173–183.
21.
TaylorWP (1935) Some animal relations to soils. Ecology16(2): 127–136.
22.
ThornCE (1978) A preliminary assessment of the geomorphic role of pocket gophers in the alpine zone of the Colorado Front Range. Geografiska Annaler. Series A. Physical Geography60(3–4): 181–187.
23.
TsikalasSGWhitesidesCJ (2013) Worm geomorphology: lessons from Darwin. Progress in Physical Geography37(2): 270–281
24.
WakeDBHadlyEAAckerlyDD (2009) Biogeography, changing climates and niche evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106: 19631– 19637.
25.
WhitesidesCJButlerDR (2016) Bioturbation by gophers and marmots and its effects on conifer germination. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms41(15): 2269–2281.
26.
WhitfordWGKayFR (1999) Biopedturbation by mammals in deserts: a review. Journal of Arid Environments41(2): 203–230.
27.
WillettG (1943) Review of Joseph Grinnell’s philosophy of nature. The Condor45(2): 80–83.
28.
WinchellEWAndersonRSLombardiEM. (2016) Gophers as geomorphic agents in the Colorado Front Range subalpine zone. Geomorphology264: 41–51.
29.
ZaitlinBHayashiM (2012) Interactions between soil biota and the effects on geomorphological features. Geomorphology157–158: 142–152.
