Wettability of ash conditions splash erosion and runoff rates in the post-fire

Jordán, António; Zavala, Lorena M.; Granged, Arturo José Pascual; Gordillo‐Rivero, Ángel J.; García‐Moreno, Jorge; Pereira, Paulo; Bárcenas-Moreno, Gema; Celis, Reyes de; Jiménez-Compán, Elisabeth; Alanís, Nancy

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.140

Cited by 29 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The funnel device ( Figure 1b) was specifically designed for minimizing the loss of particles that were already accumulated within the device by the washing out caused by raindrops that fall inside the device after the deposit of some particles [35]. It consists of a couple of piled-up funnels, with a filter paper in between that should be weighed before and after the rainfall event.…”

Section: Description Of Selected Splash Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Splash Erosion Devices for Rainfall Simulation Experiments: A Laboratory Study

Fernández‐Raga

Campo

Rodrigo‐Comino

et al. 2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the study of soil erosion it is important to set up the experiments well. In the experimental design one of the key factors is the choice of the measurement device. This is especially important when one part of the erosion process needs to be isolated, such as for splash erosion. Therefore, the main aim of this research is to list the general characteristics of the commonly used splash erosion devices and to discuss the performance, to be able to relate them, and make suggestions regarding their use. The devices we selected for this comparative comparison were: the splash cup, funnel, Morgan tray, Tübingen cup, tower, and the gutter. The devices were tested under the same conditions (rainfall characteristics, slope, and soil type) to assess their hydrological response under different intensities of simulated rainfall. All devices were installed on a sloping plot (10°) with sandy soil, and were exposed to 10 min. of simulated rain with intensities ranging from 60 to 172 mm/h to measure the splashed sediment, and to describe problems and differences among them. The results showed that the Tübingen cup was the best performing device to measure kinetic energy of the rain, but, because of its design, it is not possible to measure the detached splashed sediment under natural (field) conditions. On the other hand, the funnel device showed a significant relation with rain intensity because it loses little sediment to washing. In addition, the device is easy to use and cheap. Therefore, this device is highly recommended to estimated splash erosion. to the good performance measuring the actual splash erosion, because it loses little sediment by washing. The device is also cheap and easy to install and manage.

show abstract

Section: Description Of Selected Splash Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Splash Erosion Devices for Rainfall Simulation Experiments: A Laboratory Study

Fernández‐Raga

Campo

Rodrigo‐Comino

et al. 2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their connectivity in the landscape for a given process is controlled by factors such as geomorphology, rainfall, or soil properties (Bracken et al, 2013;Bracken, Turnbull, Wainwright, & Bogaart, 2015). However, the impacts of fire on vegetation cover and soils change connectivity of transport pathways immediately after fire and throughout the recovery period, with controls including fire severity, burn patchiness, ash characteristics, soil water repellency, and vegetation recovery (Moody et al, 2013;Jordán et al, 2015). Human factors, such as forest tracks, terraces, and post-fire management add further complication (Shakesby, 2011;Wagenbrenner, MacDonald, Coats, Robichaud, & Brown, 2015).…”

Section: Mapping the Dominant Pathways Linking Contaminants To Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing water contamination risk from vegetation fires: Challenges, opportunities and a framework for progress

Nunes

Doerr

Sheridan

et al. 2018

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some research indicated an enhanced hydrologic and erosive response with ash‐covered soils (Bodí, Doerr, Cerdà, & Mataix‐Solera, ; León, Bodí, Cerdà, & Badía, ; Woods & Balfour, ), but in a nutshell, the majority have found that an ash layer can reduce postfire runoff and associated soil losses, at least during initial rainfall events (Cerdà & Doerr, ; Jordán et al, ; Larsen et al, ; Leighton‐Boyce, Doerr, Shakesby, & Walsh, ; Woods & Balfour, ; Zavala, Jordán, Gil, Bellinfante, & Pain, ). Under field conditions, however, this role of the ash layer may easily be confounded with that of other soil surface components, such as litter (e.g., needle cast from scorched pine crowns) and stones.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Arguably, the isolated role of an ash layer in postfire runoff and erosion has been clarified most by rainfall simulation experiments carried out under fully controlled laboratory (Bodí et al, 2012;Larsen et al, 2009) as well as under field conditions (Jordán et al, 2016;Leighton-Boyce et al, 2007;Woods & Balfour, 2008;Zavala et al, 2009) or adding-removing an ash layer to field plots (León et al, 2013;Woods & Balfour, 2010;Zavala et al, 2009). The bulk of these experiments concerned the runoff-erosion response of small (0.016-0.5 m 2 ) and short (0.2-0.7 m) plots to one or two successive simulated rainfall events.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing topsoil charcoal, ash, and stone cover effects on the postfire hydrologic and erosive response under laboratory conditions

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildfires typically transform vegetation and litter into a heterogeneous layer of ash and charred material covering the soil surface that can substantially modify the postfire hydrological and erosive response. To further elucidate the influence of postfire covering layers on sheet and concentrated flow erosion, we carried out laboratory rainfall and inflow simulations on 5 distinct soil surface conditions: bare soil, with a protective cover of char, ash, stones, and a combination thereof simulating field conditions. Each of 3 replicate simulations per treatment involved 4 runs, the first 2 simulating just rain (at 56 mm hr−1) under dry and wet soil conditions and the next 2 simulating rain together with inflow at high and extreme rates (0.76 and 1.4 L min−1). Overall runoff over the 4 runs together was lower for all 4 types of protective cover than for bare soil, but ash and char were clearly less effective than stones and, in particular, field conditions with runoff reductions of 25%, 23%, 40%, and 70%, respectively. Stones and field conditions were similarly effective in reducing overall erosion rates (with 47% and 77%, respectively), whereas ash and char even slightly increased overall erosion rates compared to bare soil. Ash and char were effective in reduction erosion but only during the first 2 runs under simulated rainfall. The greater effectiveness of the field conditions suggested synergistic effects between its 3 components, probably due to the stones enhancing infiltration and increasing flow resistance, thereby hampering detachment of ash and char and/or enhancing their deposition.

show abstract

Wettability of ash conditions splash erosion and runoff rates in the post-fire

Cited by 29 publications

References 65 publications

Comparative Analysis of Splash Erosion Devices for Rainfall Simulation Experiments: A Laboratory Study

Comparative Analysis of Splash Erosion Devices for Rainfall Simulation Experiments: A Laboratory Study

Assessing water contamination risk from vegetation fires: Challenges, opportunities and a framework for progress

Comparing topsoil charcoal, ash, and stone cover effects on the postfire hydrologic and erosive response under laboratory conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About