Advertisement

Ecosystems

pp 1–15 | Cite as

The Legacy of a Severe Wildfire on Stream Nitrogen and Carbon in Headwater Catchments

  • Charles C. Rhoades
  • Alex T. Chow
  • Timothy P. Covino
  • Timothy S. Fegel
  • Derek N. Pierson
  • Allison E. Rhea
Article

Abstract

Large, high-severity wildfires alter the physical and biological conditions that determine how catchments retain and release nutrients and regulate streamwater quality. The short-term water quality impacts of severe wildfire are often dramatic, but the longer-term responses may better reflect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem recovery. We followed streamwater chemistry for 14 years after the largest fire in recorded Colorado history, the 2002 Hayman Fire, to characterize patterns in nitrogen (N) and carbon (C) export. Throughout the post-fire period, stream nitrate and total dissolved N (TDN) remained elevated in 10 burned catchments relative to pre-burn periods and 4 unburned control catchments. Both the extent of fire in a catchment and wildfire severity influenced stream N concentrations. Nitrate was more than an order of magnitude higher in streams draining catchments that burned to a high extent (> 60% of their areas) compared to unburned catchments. Unburned catchments retained more than 95% of atmospheric N inputs, but N retention in burned catchments was less than half of N inputs. Unlike N, stream C was elevated in catchments that burned to a lesser extent (30–60% of their areas burned), compared to either unburned or extensively burned catchments. Remotely sensed estimates of upland and riparian vegetation cover suggest that burned forests could require several more decades before forest cover and nutrient demand return to pre-fire levels. The persistent stream N increases we report are below drinking water thresholds, but exceed ecoregional reference concentrations for healthy stream ecosystems and indicate that extensively burned headwater catchments no longer function as strong sinks for atmospheric N. Combined with increasing trends in wildfire severity and elevated N deposition, our findings demonstrate the potential for substantial post-wildfire changes in ecosystem N retention and have implications for nutrient export to downstream waters.

Keywords

watershed biogeochemistry forest disturbance nitrogen cycling streamwater nutrients dissolved organic carbon Colorado nutrient retention wildfire severity Ponderosa pine forest 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for financial support from the Joint Fire Sciences Program (JFSP# 14-1-06-11) and the US Forest Service; National Fire Plan (2016-2019). Sincere thanks to Steve Alton and Paula Fornwalt of the Manitou Experimental NF, Dana Butler, Deb Entwistle, and Leah Lessard of the Pike National Forest. We acknowledge helpful comments by Susan Miller, Marin Chambers, Dan Binkley, and two anonymous reviewers on earlier versions of the manuscript.

References

  1. Abatzoglou JT, Williams AP. 2016. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:11770–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abella SR, Fornwalt PJ. 2015. Ten years of vegetation assembly after a North American mega fire. Glob Change Biol 21:789–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Addington RN, Aplet GH, Battaglia MA, Briggs JS, Brown PM, Cheng AS, Dickinson Y, Feinstein JA, Pelz KA, Regan CM, Thinnes J, Truex R, Fornwalt PJ, Gannon B, Julian CW, Underhill JL, Wolk B. 2018. Principles and practices for the restoration of ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range RMRS-GTR-373. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.: Fort Collins, CO, p 121.Google Scholar
  4. Agee JK. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Sci 72:24–34.Google Scholar
  5. APHA. 1998a. Single-column—Method 4110C. Pages 4-6 to 4-8. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 20th edn. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  6. APHA. 1998b. Total suspended solids dried at 103–105 degrees Celsius—Method 2540D. Pages 2-57 to 52-58. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 20th edn. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  7. APHA. 1998c. Nephelometric Method—2130b. Pages 2-9 to 2-11. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 20th edn. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  8. Balch JK, Bradley BA, Abatzoglou JT, Nagy RC, Fusco EJ, Mahood AL. 2017. Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:2946–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Baron JS, Rueth HM, Wolfe AM, Nydick KR, Allstott EJ, Minear JT, Moraska B. 2000. Ecosystem responses to nitrogen deposition in the Colorado Front Range. Ecosystems 3:352–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck KK, Fletcher MS, Gadd PS, Heijnis H, Saunders KM, Simpson GL, Zawadzki A. 2018. Variance and rate-of-change as early warning signals for a critical transition in an aquatic ecosystem state: a test case from Tasmania, Australia. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 123:495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benavides-Solorio JD, MacDonald LH. 2005. Measurement and prediction of post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. Int J Wildland Fire 14:457–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Betts EF, Jones JB. 2009. Impact of wildfire on stream nutrient chemistry and ecosystem metabolism in boreal forest catchments of interior Alaska. Arct Antarct Alp Res 41:407–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bladon KD, Emelko MB, Silins U, Stone M. 2014. Wildfire and the future of water supply. Environ Sci Technol 48:8936–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bormann BT, Homann PS, Darbyshire RL, Morrissette BA. 2008. Intense forest wildfire sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Can J For Res 38:2771–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bowman WD, Murgel J, Blett T, Porter E. 2012. Nitrogen critical loads for alpine vegetation and soils in Rocky Mountain National Park. J Environ Manag 103:165–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyden S, Binkley D. 2016. The effects of soil fertility and scale on competition in ponderosa pine. Eur J For Res 135:153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown PM, Battaglia MA, Fornwalt PJ, Gannon B, Huckaby LS, Julian C, Cheng AS. 2015. Historical (1860) forest structure in ponderosa pine forests of the northern Front Range, Colorado. Can J For Res 45:1462–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown TC, Froemke P. 2012. Nationwide assessment of nonpoint source threats to water quality. Bioscience 62:136–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bryant B, McGrew LW, Wobus RA. 1981. Geologic map of the Denver 1° × 2° Quadrangle, North-Central Colorado. US Geological Survey, I-1163. Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  20. Cawley KM, Hohner AK, Podgorski DC, Cooper WT, Korak JA, Rosario-Ortiz FL. 2017. Molecular and spectroscopic characterization of water extractable organic matter from Thermally altered soils reveal insight into disinfection byproduct precursors. Environ Sci Technol 51:771–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Certini G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143:1–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Chambers ME, Fornwalt PJ, Malone SL, Battaglia MA. 2016. Patterns of conifer regeneration following high severity wildfire in ponderosa pine—dominated forests of the Colorado Front Range. For Ecol Manag 378:57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chorover J, Vitousek PM, Everson DA, Esperanze AM, Turner D. 1994. Solution chemistry profiles of mixed-conifer forests before and after fire. Biogeochemistry 26:115–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chow AT, Lee ST, O’Geen AT, Orozco T, Beaudette D, Wong PK, Hernes PJ, Tate W, Dahlgren RA. 2009. Litter contributions to dissolved organic matter and disinfection byproduct precursors in California oak woodland watersheds. J Environ Qual 38:2334–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Cipra J, Kelly E, MacDonald L, Norman III J. 2003. Soil properties, erosion, and implications for rehabilitation and aquatic ecosystems. Pages 204-219 in Graham R, ed. Hayman Fire Case Study, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-114. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationGoogle Scholar
  26. Colorado. 2002. Colorado’s 2002 303(d) and Monitoring and Evaluation List. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission. Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  27. Colorado. 2016a. Colorado’s section 303(D) list of impaired waters and monitoring and evaluation list. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission. Denver, CO. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/93_2016%2811%29.pdf.
  28. Colorado. 2016b. Regulation 31—interim nitrogen values for cold rivers and streams (effective 31 May, 2017). Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Water Quality Control Commission. Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  29. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2017. South Platte river at deckers. fish survey and management information, Technical Report. On-line: https://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Fishery%20Survey%20Summaries/SouthPlatteRiverAtDeckers.pdf.
  30. Costa MR, Calvão AR, Aranha J. 2014. Linking wildfire effects on soil and water chemistry of the Marão River watershed, Portugal, and biomass changes detected from Landsat imagery. Appl Geochem 44:93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Covino T, McGlynn B, Baker MCG. 2010. Separating physical and biological nutrient retention and quantifying uptake kinetics from ambient to saturation in successive mountain stream reaches. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 115:59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. DeLuca T, Nilsson MC, Zackrisson O. 2002. Nitrogen mineralization and phenol accumulation along a fire chronosequence in northern Sweden. Oecologia 133:206–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. DeLuca TH, MacKenzie MD, Gundale MJ, Holben WE. 2006. Wildfire-produced charcoal directly influences nitrogen cycling in ponderosa pine forests. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:448–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dennison PE, Brewer SC, Arnold JD, Moritz MA. 2014. Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984–2011. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059576.Google Scholar
  35. Dunnette PV, Higuera PE, McLauchlan KK, Derr KM, Briles CE, Keefe MH. 2014. Biogeochemical impacts of wildfires over four millennia in a Rocky Mountain subalpine watershed. New Phytol 203:900–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Emelko MB, Silins U, Bladon KD, Stone M. 2011. Implications of land disturbance on drinking water treatability in a changing climate: demonstrating the need for “source water supply and protection” strategies. Water Res 45:461–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Fenn ME, Baron JS, Allen EB, Rueth HM, Nydick KR, Geiser L, Bowman WD, Sickman JO, Meixner T, Johnson DW, Neitlich P. 2003. Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition in the western United States. Bioscience 53:404–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fork M, Heffernan J. 2014. Direct and indirect effects of dissolved organic matter source and concentration on denitrification in northern Florida Rivers. Ecosystems 17:14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fornwalt PJ, Kaufmann MR. 2014. Understorey plant community dynamics following a large, mixed severity wildfire in a Pinus ponderosaPseudotsuga menziesii forest, Colorado, USA. J Veg Sci 25:805–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fornwalt P, Stevens-Rumann C, Collins B. 2018. Overstory structure and surface cover dynamics in the decade following the Hayman Fire, Colorado. Forests 9:152. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9030152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. FSA. 2015. Farm Service Agency. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). USDA–FSA, Washington, DC. Available online: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/aerial-photography/imagery-programs/naip-imagery/index.
  42. Galloway JN, Aber JD, Erisman JW, Seitzinger SP, Howarth RW, Cowling EB, Cosby BJ. 2003. The nitrogen cascade. Bioscience 53:341–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gooday AJ, Jorissen JF, Levin LA, Middelburg JJ, Naqvi SWA, Rabalais NN, Scranton M, Zhang J. 2009. Historical records of coastal eutrophication-induced hypoxia. Biogeosciences 6:1707–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Graham RT, ed. 2003. Hayman Fire Case Study: Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114 USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, p 396.Google Scholar
  45. Gundale MJ, DeLuca TH, Fiedler CE, Ramsey PW, Harrington MG, Gannon JE. 2005. Restoration treatments in a Montana ponderosa pine forest: effects on soil physical, chemical and biological properties. For Ecol Manag 213:25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hallema DW, Sun G, Bladon KD, Norman SP, Caldwell PV, Liu Y, McNulty SG. 2017. Regional patterns of post-wildfire streamflow response in the western United States: the importance of scale-specific connectivity. Hydrol Process 31:2582–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hanan EJ, Schimel JP, Dowdy K, D’Antonio CM. 2016. Effects of substrate supply, pH, and char on net nitrogen mineralization and nitrification along a wildfire-structured age gradient in chaparral. Soil Biol Biochem 95:87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Harden JW, Trumbore SE, Stocks BJ, Hirsch A, Gower ST, O’Neill KP, Kasischke ES. 2000. The role of fire in the boreal carbon budget. Glob Change Biol 6:174–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Harvey BJ. 2016. Human-caused climate change is now a key driver of forest fire activity in the western United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:11649–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Harvey BJ, Donato DC, Turner MG. 2016. High and dry: post-fire tree seedling establishment in subalpine forests decreases with post-fire drought and large stand-replacing burn patches. Glob Ecol Biogeogr .  https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12443.Google Scholar
  51. Helsel DR, Hirsch RM. 1992. Statistical methods in water resources, Vol. 49New York: Elsevier. p 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Homann PS, Bormann BT, Darbyshire RL, Morrissette BA. 2011. Forest soil carbon and nitrogen losses associated with wildfire and prescribed fire. Soil Sci Soc Am J 75:1926–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hutson SS, Barber NL, Kenny JF, Linsey KS, Lumia DS, Maupin MA. 2004. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000. US Geological Survey Circular 1268 (Reston, VA).Google Scholar
  54. Jiménez-Esquilín AE, Stromberger ME, Shepperd WD. 2008. Soil scarification and wildfire interactions and effects on microbial communities and carbon. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:111–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kaufmann MR, Regan CM, Brown PM. 2000. Heterogeneity in ponderosa pine/Douglas fir forests: age and size structure in unlogged and logged landscapes of central Colorado. Can J For Res 30:698–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Keeley JE. 2009. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage. Int J Wildland Fire 18:116–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Larsen IJ, MacDonald LH, Brown E, Rough D, Welsh MJ, Pietraszek JH, Libohova Z, de Dios Benavides-Solorio J, Schaffrath K. 2009. Causes of post-fire runoff and erosion: Water repellency, cover, or soil sealing? Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:1393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Larson AJ, Churchill D. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests of western North America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and implications for designing fuel reduction and restoration treatments. For Ecol Manag 267:74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Malone S, Fornwalt P, Battaglia M, Chambers M, Iniguez J, Sieg C. 2018. Mixed-severity fire fosters heterogeneous spatial patterns of conifer regeneration in a dry conifer forest. Forests 9:45.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f9010045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Martin DA. 2016. At the nexus of fire, water and society. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci .  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0172.Google Scholar
  61. Millar CI, Stephenson NL. 2015. Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance. Science 349:823–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Miller JD, Safford HD, Crimmins M, Thode AE. 2009. Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12:16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Minshall GW, Brock JT, Varley JD. 1989. Wildfires and Yellowstone’s stream ecosystems. Bioscience 39:707–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Murphy JD, Johnson DW, Miller WW, Walker RF, Carroll EF, Blank RR. 2006. Wildfire effects on soil nutrients and leaching in a Tahoe Basin watershed. J Environ Qual 35:479–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. NADP. 2017. National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Program Office, Illinois State Water Survey, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820.Google Scholar
  66. Pannkuk CD, Robichaud PR. 2003. Effectiveness of needle case at reducing erosion after forest fires. Water Resour Res 39:1333–42.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ranalli AJ. 2004. A summary of the scientific literature on the effects of fire on the concentration of nutrients in surface waters. USGS Open-File Report 2004-1296: 28.Google Scholar
  68. Raymond PA, Saiers JE, Sobczak WV. 2016. Hydrological and biogeochemical controls on watershed dissolved organic matter transport: pulse-shunt concept. Ecology 97:5–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Rhoades CC, Entwistle D, Butler D. 2011. The influence of wildfire extent and severity on streamwater chemistry, sediment and temperature following the Hayman Fire, Colorado. Int J Wildfire 20:430–42.Google Scholar
  70. Rhoades CC, Fornwalt PJ, Paschke MW, Shanklin A, Jonas JL. 2015. Recovery of small pile burn scars in conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range. For Ecol Manag 347:180–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Riggan PJ, Lockwood RN, Jacks PM, Colver CG, Weirich F, DeBano LF, Brass JA. 1994. Effects of fire severity on nitrate mobilization in watersheds subject to chronic atmospheric deposition. Environ Sci Technol 28:369–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Robichaud PR, MacDonald LH, Freehouf J, Neary DG, Martin D, Ashmun L. 2003. Postfire rehabilitation of the Hayman Fire. Pages 293–313 in Graham RT, ed. Hayman Fire Case Study. Ogden, UT: Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114 USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.Google Scholar
  73. Romme WH, Boyce MS, Gresswell R, Merrill EH, Minshall GW, Whitlock C, Turner MG. 2011. Twenty years after the 1988 Yellowstone Fires: lessons about disturbance and ecosystems. Ecosystems 14:1196–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rust AJ, Hogue TS, Saxe S, McCray J. 2018. Post-fire water-quality response in the western United States. Int J Wildland Fire 27:203–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Savage M, Mast JN, Feddema JJ. 2013. Double whammy: high-severity fire and drought in ponderosa pine forests of the Southwest. Can J For Res 43:570–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schlesinger WH, Bernhardt ES. 2013. Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. Oxford: Academic Press. p 673.Google Scholar
  77. Schoennagel T, Balch JK, Brenkert-Smith H, Dennison PE, Harvey BJ, Krawchuk MA, Mietkiewicz N, Morgan P, Moritz MA, Rasker R, Turner MG, Whitlock C. 2017. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests as climate changes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:4582–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Sherriff RL, Veblen TT, Franklin J. 2006. Ecological effects of changes in fire regimes in Pinus ponderosa ecosystems in the Colorado Front Range. J Veg Sci 17:705–18.Google Scholar
  79. Silins U, Bladon KD, Kelly EN, Esch E, Spence JR, Stone M, Emelko MB, Boon S, Wagner MJ, Williams CHS, Tichkowsky I. 2014. Five-year legacy of wildfire and salvage logging impacts on nutrient runoff and aquatic plant, invertebrate, and fish productivity. Ecohydrology 7:1508–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Slavik KB, Peterson BJ, Deegan LA, Bowden WB, Hershey AE, Hobbie JE. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85:939–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Smith HG, Sheridan GJ, Lane PNJ, Nyman P, Haydon S. 2011. Wildfire effects on water quality in forest catchments: a review with implications for water supply. J Hydrol 396:170–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stevens-Rumann CS, Kemp KB, Higuera PE, Harvey BJ, Rother MT, Donato DC, Morgan P, Veblen TT. 2017. Evidence for declining forest resilience to wildfires under climate change. Ecol Lett . https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12889.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Triska FJ, Kennedy VC, Avanzino RJ, Zellweger GW, Bencala KE. 1989a. Retention and transport of nutrients in a 3rd-order stream—channel processes. Ecology 70:1877–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Triska FJ, Kennedy VC, Avanzino RJ, Zellweger GW, Bencala KE. 1989b. Retention and transport of nutrients in a third-order stream in Northwestern California: hyporheic processes. Ecology 70:1893–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Turner MG. 2010. Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world. Ecology 91:2833–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Turner MG, Smithwick EAH, Metzger KL, Tinker DB, Romme WH. 2007. Inorganic nitrogen availability after severe stand-replacing fire in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:4782–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Underhill JL, Dickinson Y, Rudney A, Thinnes J. 2014. Silviculture of the Colorado Front Range landscape restoration initiative. J For 112:484–93.Google Scholar
  88. USEPA. 2000. Nutrient criteria technical guidance manual. Rivers and streams. EPA-822-B-00-002. Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  89. USEPA. 2003. National Drinking Water Standards. EPA 816-F-03-016.Google Scholar
  90. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wagner MJ, Bladon KD, Silins U, Williams CHS, Martens AM, Boon S, MacDonald RJ, Stone M, Emelko MB, Anderson A. 2014. Catchment-scale stream temperature response to land disturbance by wildfire governed by surface–subsurface energy exchange and atmospheric controls. J Hydrol 517:328–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wan S, Hui D, Luo Y. 2001. Fire effects on nitrogen pools and dynamics in terrestrial ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Ecol Appl 11:1349–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wang JJ, Dahlgren RA, Erşan MS, Karanfil T, Chow AT. 2015. Wildfire altering terrestrial precursors of disinfection byproducts in forest detritus. Environ Sci Technol 49:5921–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Wang J, Zhang X. 2017. Impacts of wildfires on interannual trends in land surface phenology: an investigation of the Hayman Fire. Environ Res Lett 12:54008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Westerling AL, Turner MG, Smithwick EAH, Romme WH, Ryan MG. 2011. Continued warming could transform Greater Yellowstone fire regimes by mid-21st century. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:13165–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Writer JH, Hohner A, Oropeza J, Schmidt A, Cawley K, Rosario-Ortiz FL. 2014. Water treatment implications after the High Park Wildfire in Colorado. J Am Water Works Assoc 106:85–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. WRDC. 2017. Western Regional Climate Center. Monthly Total Precipitation Cheesman, Colorado (Station 051528). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?co1528.
  99. Zarnetske JP, Haggerty R, Wondzell SM, Baker MA. 2011. Labile dissolved organic carbon supply limits hyporheic denitrification. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 116:G04036.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature (This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles C. Rhoades
    • 1
  • Alex T. Chow
    • 2
  • Timothy P. Covino
    • 3
  • Timothy S. Fegel
    • 1
  • Derek N. Pierson
    • 1
    • 4
  • Allison E. Rhea
    • 3
  1. 1.USDA Forest ServiceRocky Mountain Research StationFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forestry and Environmental ConservationClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecosystem Science and SustainabilityColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.Department of Crop and Soil ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations