Abstract
MR. F. N. RATGLIFFE, of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Melbourne, has sent a long communication, for which space cannot be found, discussing an article in NATURE of December 19, based on his recent report on wind erosion (drift soil) in the arid pastoral belt of South Australia. Mr. Ratcliffe appears to hold the opinion that the processes taking place in that part of the world differ from the causes which have, and are, producing the man-made desert in other regions. The factors responsible for the destruction of the vegetation in Australia are drought, overgrazing by stock and the rabbit. The extension of the Sahara and the dust bowl in America are (omitting the rodent) being brought about by the same causes—excessive cultivation or grazing, or both combined. But the word ‘drought’ as used in Australia and America requires definition. This is the chief factor in the case. The actual results of the over-utilization are the same, whether the land is actually covered up by sand, or the top soil is blown away, or the soil deteriorates in situ: the spring water-level is lowered in the soil, not by drought as ordinarily understood by that word, but by the desiccation brought about by the acts of man. The end is a desert, and the water disappears from the surface and sinks to varying depths in the soil. As regards wind erosion, that is, dust storms, few travellers or inquirers who have studied desert regions, many of them man-made, can have failed to become acquainted with desert clouds of that type, whether consisting of sand or blown soil of valuable types. Mr. Ratcliffe has conceived the idea that the erosion or drift in Australia is something apart. It would appear to be only a type.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Soil Drift in South Australia. Nature 139, 580 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1038/139580b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/139580b0