Abstract
SOME time ago the question of the effect of forests in checking floods was discussed in the pages of NATURE. The subject was lately recalled to my recollection while watching gardening operations in the vegetable borders. I was then much struck by the different conditions, after rainfall, of newly dug ground and ground that had lain undisturbed for a year. The gardener was proceeding to put in plants in the newly dug part, but found it much too wet to be worked in. It was suggested he might continue the digging of the rest of the border and leave the planting until later. On breaking up the undisturbed ground, it was found to be fairly dry and in quite good condition for digging. These conditions seemed to indicate that newly disturbed ground holds a much greater proportion of the rainfall than does consolidated ground in which the soil particles are more closely packed together. In the latter the water seems to pass much more freely through it than in the former, possibly due to there being a continuous water film from the surface to the water table. It not only passes more quickly to the lower level, but much more of it passes, while the disturbed ground retains a much greater proportion of it to the benefit of the vegetation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
AITKEN, J. Forests and Floods. Nature 93, 506 (1914). https://doi.org/10.1038/093506a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/093506a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.