Advertisement

Comparison of the effectiveness of needle cast and straw helimulching for reducing soil erosion after wildfire in NW Spain

  • Cristina FernándezEmail author
  • José A. Vega
  • Teresa Fontúrbel
Sediments, Sec 3 • Hillslope and River Basin Sediment Dynamics • Research Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Soil erosion is one of the most detrimental consequences of forest fires. The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of helimulching and needle cast for reducing soil loss after wildfire in NW Spain.

Materials and methods

Sediment yields were determined during the first 2 years after fire in 30 plots (80 m2) established in an area affected by wildfire in the summer of 2015. Thus, 10 plots were established for monitoring each of the following treatments: combusted canopy, combusted canopy + helimulching and scorched canopy. The effect of each type of treatment on soil erosion was tested using a general linear mixed model.

Results and discussion

Immediately after helimulching, the mean soil cover was 90%, whereas the fallen needles from the scorched trees totally covered the burned soil. Soil erosion was significantly higher in the combusted canopy treatment than that in the combusted canopy + helimulching and scorched canopy treatments. The latter two treatments yielded similar results (0.3 and 0.5 Mg ha−1, respectively). The similarity in effectiveness is probably due to the similar initial degree of soil cover provided by both treatments.

Conclusions

Needle cast from totally scorched crowns significantly reduced soil erosion after wildfire. Helimulching resembled the effects of the litter fallen from the scorched trees with a similar reduction in soil loss.

Keywords

Helimulching Needle cast Soil burn severity Soil erosion Wildfire 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to everyone who helped with fieldwork, in particular, José Gómez, Emilia Puga and Jesús Pardo.

Funding information

The study was funded by the National Institute of Agricultural Research of Spain (INIA) through project RTA2014-00011-C06-02, cofunded by FEDER and the Plan de Mejora e Innovación Forestal de Galicia (2010-2020) and INDITEX.

References

  1. Badía D, Marti C (2000) Seeding and mulching treatments as conservation measures of two burned soils in the Central Ebro valley, NE Spain. Arid Soil Res Rehabil 13:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cerdà A, Doerr SH (2008) The effect of ash and needle cover on surface runoff and erosion in the immediate post-fire period. Catena 74(3):256–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Core Team Development R (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, 3.4.3 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  4. FAO (1998) Soil map of the world. FAO-UNESCO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  5. Fernández C, Vega JA (2014) Efficacy of bark strands and straw mulching after wildfire in NW Spain: effects on erosion control and vegetation recovery. Ecol Eng 63:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fernández C, Vega JA (2016) Modelling the effect of soil burn severity on soil erosion at hillslope scale in the first year following wildfire in NW Spain. Earth Surf Process Landf 41(7):928–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernández C, Vega JA, Fontúrbel T (2016) Reducing post-fire soil erosion from the air: performance of heli-mulching in a mountainous area on the coast of NW Spain. Catena 147:489–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernández C, Vega JA, Jiménez E, Fonturbel T (2011) Effectiveness of three post-fire treatments at reducing soil erosion in Galicia (NW Spain). Int J Wildland Fire 20(1):104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groen AH, Woods SW (2008) Effectiveness of aerial seeding and straw mulch for reducing post-wildfire erosion, north-western Montana, USA. Int J Wildland Fire 17:559–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jain TB, Graham RT (2007) The relation between tree burn severity and forest structure in the Rocky Mountains. Proceedings of the 2005 National Selviculture Workshop USDA for. Serv. General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-203:213–250Google Scholar
  11. Jain TB, Graham RT, Pilliod DS (2004) Tongue-tied: confused meanings for common fire terminology can lead to fuels mismanagement. Wildfire July/August 22–26Google Scholar
  12. Jiménez E, Vega JA, Fernández-Alonso JM, Vega-Nieva D, Álvarez-González JG, Ruiz-González AD (2013) Allometric equations for estimating canopy fuel load and distribution of pole-size maritime pine trees in five Iberian provenances. Can J For Res 43(2):149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johansen MP, Hakonson TE, Breshears DD (2001) Post-fire runoff and erosion from rainfall simulation: contrasting forests with shrublands and grasslands. Hydrol Process 15(15):2953–2965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kent M, Coker P (1992) Vegetation description and analysis: a practical approach. Belhaven Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Larsen IJ, MacDonald LH, Brown E, Rough D, Welsh MJ, Pietraszek JH, Libohova Z, Benavides-Solorio J, Schaffrath K (2009) Causes of post-fire runoff and erosion: water repellency, cover or soil sealing? Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:1393–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MMA (2005) Inventario Nacional erosión suelos 2002-2012. Dirección General de Conservación de la naturaleza. MMA. MadridGoogle Scholar
  17. Neary DG, Ryan KC, De Bano LF (2005) Wildland fire in ecosystems. Effects of fire on soil and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42, vol 4. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, OgdenGoogle Scholar
  18. Neris J, Doerr S, Notario del Pino J, Arbelo C, Rodríguez-Rodríguez A (2017) Effectiveness of polyacrylamide, wood shred mulch, and pine needle mulch as post-fire hillslope stabilization treatments in two contrasting volcanic soils. Forests 8(7):247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pannkuk CD, Robichaud PR (2003) Effectiveness of needle cast at reducing erosion after forest fires. Water Resour Res 39(12):1333–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prats SA, MacDonald LH, Monteiro M, Ferreira AJD, Coelho COA, Keizer JJ (2012) Effectiveness of forest residue mulching in reducing post-fire runoff and erosion in a pine and a eucalypt plantation in north-central Portugal. Geoderma 191:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prosdocimi M, Tarolli P, Cerdà A (2016) Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion: a review. Earth-Sci Rev 161:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robichaud PR, Brown RE (2002) Silt fences: an economical technique for measuring hillslope soil erosion. In: General technical report RMRS-GTR-94. USDA Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  23. Robichaud PR, Ashmun LE, Sims BD (2010) Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hillslope stabilization. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-240. USDA Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  24. Robichaud PR, Lewis SA, Wagenbrenner JW, Ashmun LE, Brown RE (2013) Post-fire mulching for runoff and erosion mitigation: part I: effectiveness at reducing hillslope erosion rates. Catena 105:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sadeghi SHR, Gholami L, Homaee M, Khaledi Darvishan A (2015) Reducing sediment concentration and soil loss using organic and inorganic amendments at plot scale. Solid Earth 6(2):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smets T, Poesen J, Knapen A (2008) Spatial scale effects on the effectiveness of organic mulches in reducing soil erosion by water. Earth-Sci Rev 89:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spigel KM, Robichaud PR (2007) First year postfire erosion rates in Bitterroot National Forest, Montana. Hydrol Process 21:989–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vega JA, Fernández C, Fontúrbel MT, González-Prieto SJ, Jiménez E (2014) Testing the effects of straw mulching and herb seeding on soil erosion after fire in a gorse shrubland. Geoderma 223-225:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vega JA, Fernández C, Fonturbel T (2015) Comparing the effectiveness of seeding and mulching + seeding in reducing soil erosion after a high severity fire in Galicia (NW Spain). Ecol Eng 74:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vega JA, Fontúrbel MT, Fernández C, Arellano A, Díaz-Raviña M, Carballas T, Martín A, González-Prieto S, Merino A, Benito E (2013a) Acciones urgentes contra la erosión en áreas forestales quemadas. Guía para su planificación en Galicia Santiago de CompostelaGoogle Scholar
  31. Vega JA, Fontúrbel MT, Merino A, Fernández C, Ferreiro A, Jiménez E (2013b) Testing the ability of visual indicators of soil burn severity to reflect changes in soil chemical and microbial properties in pine forests and shrubland. Plant Soil 369:73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vieira DCS, Serpa D, Nunes JPC, Prats SA, Neves R, Keizer JJ (2018) Predicting the effectiveness of different mulching techniques in reducing post-fire runoff and erosion at plot scale with the RUSLE, MMF and PESERA models. Environ Res 165:365–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagenbrenner JW, MacDonald LH, Rough D (2006) Effectiveness of three post-fire rehabilitation treatments in the Colorado front range. Hydrol Process 20(14):2989–3006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall-erosion losses- a guide to conservation planning. Agriculture handbook. No 537. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Investigación Forestal-LourizánPontevedraSpain

Personalised recommendations