Wind Erosion in Western Queensland Australia
Modelling Land Susceptibility to Wind Erosion in Western ... - Ninti One Modelling Land Susceptibility to Wind Erosion in Western ... - Ninti One
Chapter 7 – Land Erodibility Dynamics 1980-2006Finally, the sensitivity of the bioregions to land erodibility change can be described. Theerodibility of the Mulga Lands is most sensitive to climate variability (Figure 7.5). This issupported by the correlation of land erodibility with rainfall, the SOI and the PDO, andhistorical reports of land degradation in the bioregion in response to drought and overgrazingin the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s (McKeon et al., 2004). The sensitivity of the bioregion todegradation can be attributed to the region’s arid climate, high stocking rates and thefragmented nature of the landscape (Stokes et al., 2008). These factors contribute to lowvegetation resilience to short-term climate variability and a response of significant reductionsin understory grass cover during periods of low rainfall. This sensitivity exists in othersimilarly fragmented semi-arid rangelands around the world (Galvin et al., 2008), suggestingthat other dust source areas will be as responsive to global teleconnections.Figure 7.5 indicates that land erodibility dynamics in the Channel Country operates at asimilar time scale to the Mulga Lands, but that rapid (
Chapter 7 – Land Erodibility Dynamics 1980-20067.7 ConclusionsThis research has examined spatial and temporal patterns in land erodibility in westernQueensland, Australia. The distribution of erodible land areas has been mapped, and temporalchanges in land erodibility have been analysed in the context of regional and global scaleclimate variability. Consistently erodible land areas were found to be located in dunefieldsand the outer floodplains of the regions’ major river systems. These spatial patterns in landerodibility are consistent with observational records of wind erosion activity. Temporal trendsin land erodibility were found to be distinct across the four study area bioregions. Regionalscale land erodibility dynamics were found to be influenced by vegetation cover sensitivity torainfall, ENSO and PDO interactions. In a global context the research has highlighted thecomplex and dynamic nature of land erodibility.Model predictions of climate change indicate increasing variability in precipitation across theworld’s deserts (Meehl et al., 2007). Concurrently, global measurements of outgoing longwaveradiation indicate a poleward expansion of the Hadley circulation (Hu and Fu, 2007).These may lead to increased frequencies of drought and the expansion of mid-latitude desertsin the northern and southern hemispheres. The results presented in this chapter demonstratethat regional scale changes in land erodibility are sensitive to rainfall variability driven byglobal scale climate teleconnections. This emphasises the importance of research to map andmonitor land erodibility so that we can better understand the effects of land management andfuture climatic changes on wind erosion processes.Further research into land erodibility dynamics in Australia requires an extension of thatpresented here. Firstly, research should focus on extending the length of the modelsimulations. This would allow variations in land erodibility to be analysed under a greaterrange of ENSO and PDO conditions. Secondly, effort should be directed toward developingschemes to simulate temporal changes in soil erodibility in rangeland environments. Landerodibility dynamics over small (sub-regional) spatial and monthly temporal scales are highlydependent on soil erodibility, particularly in landscapes with sparse vegetation cover. Theaddition of a robust soil erodibility scheme to AUSLEM would improve model skill inassessing land erodibility. It would also allow for analyses of model output at higher temporalresolutions and an ability to assess the impacts of short- and long-term land managementpractices on potential wind erosion activity. Finally, analyses should be extended to include187
- Page 160 and 161: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 162 and 163: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 164 and 165: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 166 and 167: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 168 and 169: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 170 and 171: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 172 and 173: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 174 and 175: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 176 and 177: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 178 and 179: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 180 and 181: Chapter 5 - Land Erodibility Model
- Page 182 and 183: Chapter 6 - Field Assessments and M
- Page 184 and 185: Chapter 6 - Field Assessments and M
- Page 186 and 187: Chapter 6 - Field Assessments and M
- Page 188 and 189: Chapter 6 - Field Assessments and M
- Page 190 and 191: Chapter 6 - Field Assessments and M
- Page 192 and 193: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 194 and 195: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 196 and 197: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 198 and 199: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 200 and 201: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 202 and 203: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 204 and 205: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 206 and 207: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 208 and 209: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 212 and 213: Chapter 7 - Land Erodibility Dynami
- Page 214 and 215: Chapter 8 - Conclusions• There is
- Page 216 and 217: Chapter 8 - ConclusionsThe third ai
- Page 218 and 219: Chapter 8 - Conclusionswas shown to
- Page 220 and 221: Chapter 8 - Conclusionsland use cha
- Page 222 and 223: Chapter 8 - Conclusionsmodels are n
- Page 224 and 225: Chapter 8 - Conclusionsmultiple ass
- Page 226 and 227: Chapter 8 - Conclusionsthe opportun
- Page 228 and 229: Beadle, N.C.W., 1945. Dust storms.
- Page 230 and 231: Bryan, R.B., Govers, G., Poesen, J.
- Page 232 and 233: Chepil, W.S., 1965. Transport of so
- Page 234 and 235: Fryrear, D.W., Sutherland, P.L., Da
- Page 236 and 237: Gregory, J.M., 1984. Prediction of
- Page 238 and 239: Hugenholtz, C.H., Wolfe, S.A., 2005
- Page 240 and 241: Littleboy, M., McKeon, G.M., 1997.
- Page 242 and 243: Marshall, J.K., 1973. Drought, land
- Page 244 and 245: Assessment Report of the Intergover
- Page 246 and 247: Penner, J.E., et al. , 2001. Climat
- Page 248 and 249: Rickert, K.G., McKeon, G.M., 1982.
- Page 250 and 251: Stokes, C., J., McAllister, R.R.J.,
- Page 252 and 253: Williams, W.J., Eldridge, D.J., Alc
Chapter 7 – Land Erodibility Dynamics 1980-2006F<strong>in</strong>ally, the sensitivity of the bioregions to land erodibility change can be described. Theerodibility of the Mulga Lands is most sensitive to climate variability (Figure 7.5). This issupported by the correlation of land erodibility with ra<strong>in</strong>fall, the SOI and the PDO, andhistorical reports of land degradation <strong>in</strong> the bioregion <strong>in</strong> response to drought and overgraz<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s (McKeon et al., 2004). The sensitivity of the bioregion todegradation can be attributed to the region’s arid climate, high stock<strong>in</strong>g rates and thefragmented nature of the landscape (Stokes et al., 2008). These factors contribute to lowvegetation resilience to short-term climate variability and a response of significant reductions<strong>in</strong> understory grass cover dur<strong>in</strong>g periods of low ra<strong>in</strong>fall. This sensitivity exists <strong>in</strong> othersimilarly fragmented semi-arid rangelands around the world (Galv<strong>in</strong> et al., 2008), suggest<strong>in</strong>gthat other dust source areas will be as responsive to global teleconnections.Figure 7.5 <strong>in</strong>dicates that land erodibility dynamics <strong>in</strong> the Channel Country operates at asimilar time scale to the Mulga Lands, but that rapid (
Change language