Comparison of the effectiveness of needle cast and straw helimulching for reducing soil erosion after wildfire in NW Spain
- 11 Downloads
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.
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.
KeywordsHelimulching Needle cast Soil burn severity Soil erosion Wildfire
We are grateful to everyone who helped with fieldwork, in particular, José Gómez, Emilia Puga and Jesús Pardo.
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.
- Core Team Development R (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, 3.4.3 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- FAO (1998) Soil map of the world. FAO-UNESCO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Kent M, Coker P (1992) Vegetation description and analysis: a practical approach. Belhaven Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- MMA (2005) Inventario Nacional erosión suelos 2002-2012. Dirección General de Conservación de la naturaleza. MMA. MadridGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Robichaud PR, Ashmun LE, Sims BD (2010) Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hillslope stabilization. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-240. USDA Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall-erosion losses- a guide to conservation planning. Agriculture handbook. No 537. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar