Sand dunes in the Simpson Desert, covering a river system that is up to 50 million years old. Credit: Michael Hutchinson/ANU
SYDNEY: An ancient river system buried 35 metres below the sand dunes Simpson Desert in Central Australia has been revealed by a team of Australian and American researchers.
This network of rivers and streams under the desert can be utilised for its valuable resources such as water in a sustainable way, the researchers said.
“We have gained insight into how the landscape works so we can manage water responsibly,” said researcher Michael Hutchinson from the Australian National University in Canberra, a main contributor to the study published in the latest edition of the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences.
Hidden under thick sand dunes
Scientists have always suspected rivers and streams once traversed the Simpson, but the thickness of the overlying dunes and bedrock in this area and limitations in landscape sensing technology have always held research back.
A team from ANU, after more than a decade of work, have conquered the thick overlying dunes and bedrock and developed complex new Digital Elevation Model (ANUDEM) software that successfully mapped the subtle topography that underlies the landscape of today.
The software models how water moves across the surface of the continent. It infers the location of the underground river system by joining the lowest points from ground-level elevation measurements, Hutchinson said.
Vast river system
Using their new software, the team from ANU mapped the course of the rivers buried roughly 35 m under the Simpson Desert for the first time. The rivers are vast, covering hundreds of kilometres, the researchers said.
It is estimated the rivers and streams are some of the oldest in the world, at least 50 million years old, from a time when the desert was greener and wetter than it is today.
The results looked right according to the team, as the underground rivers were mapped where they were expected to be according to current adjoining rivers in the area.
“The ancient drainage systems are thought to have originated in the wet climate of the late Cretaceous, they are that old,” Hutchinson said.
The discovery of the ancient rivers have highlighted the dramatic shift in landscape Australia has seen over time and “serves as a dramatic reminder of climate change,” said co-author Robert Craddock, from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington.
Buried river channels have proven to be valuable economic, ecological and agricultural resources in other continents.
Gold mines and wells in the desert
Heavy minerals such as gold and uranium could be associated with the ancient drainage systems, Hutchinson said. This map is likely to aid mineral exploration currently occurring in the area.
And the underground rivers could suggest places for wells in the future, Hutchinson said.
But humans aren’t the only ones that rely on this valuable resource – numerous plants and animals are sustained by this ground water, many of which are endangered.
Model may predict future landscapes too
Although the ANUDEM has allowed the researchers to peer into the past, the software is also being used to model the future, Hutchinson said. It is possible to predict what the future landscape might look like under changing climatic conditions.
“Their results tell us where the ancient rivers are in that region but not their age, their groundwater contents or the nature of their infilling sediments”, said John Magee, a geologist from ANU who also works in landscape mapping but did not contribute to Hutchinson’s study.
“The methodology developed by the researchers could undoubtedly be used to improve mapping of ancient river systems throughout the world”.
Follow Cosmos on Twitter!
twitter.com/cosmosmagazine
Please leave a comment
Please comply with our Community rules.
Is not just like some people who believe in the myth of evolution to make a grand discovery such as this and assign their own brand of religion to it by saying it is “50 million years old” and most people are just gullible enough to believe them. Just because a group of people fancy themselves as scientist says some thing is true does not make it so. History is full of instances where the so called “scientific community” has been proven WRONG!
science is proven wrong and revised all the time thats the point of it so our knowledge grows and what we thought was true before may have been wrong. religion doesn’t change much as there is no evidence which can change for it as there is no evidence.
The first paragraph mentions Sydney for no apparent reason, then Canberra (they are in totally different states).
There is nothing in the story about Sydney, so why use it?
“SYDNEY” is the dateline: it tells readers where the writer is based. Canberra is where the ANU is based.
It would be interesting to find out if the “green period” of the Simpson desert is correlated with the “green period” of the Sahara Desert – as ancient watercourses have been found there as well – lying beneath the sands.
You live in a medieval world of darkness, and I feel sorry for you.
Yeah and the earth was created 6,000 years ago, In 7 ‘earth’ days before the Earth was created. Yeah and Jesus drove a car, before cars were created. Maybe you should be reading ‘religion dispatches’ instead of a science mag. Big L on ya forehead.
Thanks for not bringing religion into this like several others have. I just don’t understand that. This is science, pure and simple. Proven facts based on proven methods. Not superstition belief and false stories based on corrupt power of past kings and church(es) which still seem to keep so many people gripped in false beliefs and promises which hold back humanity today.
And, yes, I agree with you in wondering if there is some correlation with this and other reports of underground rivers the same (or close to) age. Perhaps that will come up later.
Yes there is a correlation between the two.
I am sure with a little googling you can find the facts.
Successful troll is successful
Science vertifies its information by using some methods. in your word proven, in my word no. Religion uses other methods. Many think they are proven. It is all about trust in an athority and THEIR method. not THE method. i cannot comprehend a 4 pages matematic formula that proves something after their own methods. i either trust them and their truth, or i do not. that goes with any truth from the bible as well. science is just another authority, just like religion.
Science vertifies its information by using some methods. in your word proven, in my word no. Religion uses other methods. Many think they are proven. It is all about trust in an athority and THEIR method. not THE method. i cannot comprehend a 4 pages matematic formula that proves something after their own methods. i either trust them and their truth, or i do not. that goes with any truth from the bible as well. science is just another authority, just like religion.
I have a degree in Theology. I also have a degree in Engineering (i.e., Science that has to work, or else!)
Different tools for different purposes; both are reliable within their fields.
Do you use the Bible to find recipes for dinner?
When your car breaks down do you open the Bible to figure out how to fix it?
When you’re trying to write a letter, do you flip through the Bible to figure out how to spell a word?
Do you open the Bible to find out what the weather will be tomorrow?
Do you call the Bible to find out how much money is in your checking account?
Why then do religious zealots insist that the Bible is a science textbook?
The Bible is an article of faith. It’s where you go to find hope, inspiration, and some lesson about how to live a good life. Faith, by definition, is belief in something in the absence of proof. All of those who condemn science because it fails to support your literal interpretation of the Bible, by definition, lack faith. Scientists are not the ones who are the sinners here. It is you who are because of your complete and utter lack of faith.
Apologies! Your last entry was incorrect! Correct entry is:
Science verifies.
Religion assumes.
Now, that’s better.
Let’s see the track record of those who “fancy themselves as scientists” vs those who “fancy themselves as religious”.
Science:
Anti-bacterial drugs, air planes, cell phones, internet, space ships, transplants, genetic improvements, cures for innumerable diseases, scheduling systems, agricultural improvements, disease control, transportation systems, auto-pilots, airplane navigation systems, google translation, spelling, search, graphical rendering, movies, advances in macro and micro physics, increase productivity in factories, energy production (they find oil by looking at fossils and their known “evolution”), solar and wind energy conversion. The list is endless:
Religion:
Bunch of inconsistent old books. Moralizing but full of hypocrisy, failure to heed evidence and sticking to things that don’t work. Backwardness, authoritarianism. 3000 years of philosophy with almost nothing to show for it. 3000 years of confusing “ought” for “is”. Suppression of woman, suppression of non-believers. A, frankly embarrassing, dismal and shameful record.
I’ll take science please.
Instead of posting here, why don’t you simply burn them at the stake? That would be nothing new for the religious community….or drill holes in their heads to let the evil spirits out. Yeah, I think I’ll stick to Science…
Not to mention suicide bombers, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Hunts, Guyana…the list goes on and on…
audacious to argue the “vs” – science itself is responsible for depth of destruction in your listed religious wars (guns, grenades, fighter aircraft etc)
The problem in the science vs religion debate is surely not science or religion themselves, but in the advocates of both.
Surely, if we as people have respect for the other person and view, and an open mind, then all views and standpoints can coexist.
Respect for the other person or view etc is with the individual, and a lot of people do have this to greter or lessor extent.
An open mind is a different entity altogether.
Scientists, or at least good scientists, (and people in general) must have, and do have, an open mind. Without it they are not open to different or new hypotheses, which is critical to the advancement of ideas and science (and the human race)
Religious fundamentalists or literalists, who are surely in the minority but are very vocal, seem to be very attached to their position and as such do not have an open mind. Many many spiritual and religious people are open to science, but are the less vocal minority.
There is none so blind as he who will not see. Those with a very fixed point of view, including those with a literalist reading of the bible, please open your mind to other views.
I have no basis and, therefore, no inclination to challenge any of the FACTS in this report. I do, however, question the OPINION that “We have gained insight into how the landscape works so we can manage water RESPONSIBLY,”. (Emphasis added)
The city mentioned at the beginning of the article merely states that is where the reporter is reporting from.
It is neither scientific nor realistic to compare apples and oranges, but for the sake of argument let’s look at the numbers killed by science v those killed by religious fervor.The number could well be very very large and possibly line-ball.A good reason is that people misuse science and ditto religion for their own ends.The major difference between science and, say, Christianity, is that Christianity offers the human race belief in a way out.Religion offers hope, science offers doubt. When it’s time to take your very last breath, which will you be most comfortable with?
elmohu,brisbane
well, talking Australia, did Noahs Arc have Kangaroos and Tasmanian Devils, since it included one couple of each species on Earth (which go into Millions, how to fit them onto 1 boat not made of steel anyway). And if so, why are there no Kangaroos and Tassi Devils near Ararat?
Interesting, but how does that help with the water situation now? Is there water under there? Can we use it somehow?
Can’t help but comment on some of the other entries….we are a little off the subject me thinks. Oh but wait, maybe someone could turn all the water into wine and we can have a giant party!
I intended to call your thinking ‘Neanderthal’, but that would be insulting to those extinct members of the Homo genus. Time to grow up mate and expand your thinking!
I love to hear these people make themselves look like idiots by making fun of this dude. He actually is correct! Scientists have never fully proven true age and time. Most people do not know that most rock layers are “dated” by the fossils they contain. Scientists will choose a special reference fossil called an “index fossil.” Then they assume (based on the phylogenetic tree) that the “simple” index fossils were the oldest. Finding one of these “oldest” index fossils in a layer identifies that layer as the “oldest.” They then assign a date to that rock layer (based on the theory of evolution) and record that date on their geologic time scale. They continue this process with the “more complex” index fossils—assigning each increase in “complexity” to a younger rock layer until they complete filling out the geologic time scale. (A complete geologic time scale is also referred to as a “geologic column.”)Notice that although the layers of the earth were dated using index fossils, the index fossils were dated by guessing their age based on the theory of evolution. This is not science nor a valid application of the scientific method. Suggesting a hypothetical age for a fossil (based on a theory) and then telling everyone it is an established fact is not the way to apply the scientific method. If you quiz paleontologists about this, many will assure you that their techniques are indeed scientific. They will tell you they accurately date the fossil using the date of the rock layer in which they found it.
Did you notice what just happened? They assigned a date to the fossil, then dated the layer of earth which contained that fossil. Then they turned around and told you they knew the age of the fossil, because they knew the date of that layer of earth. This is called “circular reasoning.”
I just cant wait till science proves that religion is used to control the masses, I find most religious people deny the existance of anything that is not in their book of made up words, get your heads out of your backsides and see the light… lol
Leave a Reply