Cited by 67Fire effects on ecosystemsHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesHydrology and Drought Analysis

A regional estimate of postfire streamflow change in California

Open access
Bart, Ryan R.·2016·Water Resources Research

Abstract

The effect of fire on annual streamflow has been examined in numerous watershed studies, with some studies observing postfire increases in streamflow while other have observed no conclusive change. Despite this inherent variability in streamflow response, the management of water resources for flood protection, water supply, water quality, and the environment necessitates an understanding of postfire effects on streamflow at regional scales. In this study, the regional effect of wildfire on annual streamflow was investigated using 12 paired watersheds in central and southern California. A mixed model was used to pool and statistically examine the combined paired‐watershed data, with emphasis on the effects of percentage area burned, postfire recovery of vegetation, and postfire wetness conditions on postfire streamflow change. At a regional scale, postfire annual streamflow increased 134% (82%–200%) during the first postfire year assuming 100% area burned and average annual wetness conditions. Postfire response decreased with lower percentages of percentage area burned and during subsequent years as vegetation recovered following fire. Annual streamflow response to fire was found to be sensitive to annual wetness conditions, with postfire response being smallest during dry years, greatest during wet years, and slowly decreasing during very wet years. These findings provide watershed managers with a first‐order estimate for predicting postfire streamflow response in both gauged and ungauged watersheds.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2014wr016553

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • River flow generally increases in the months following wildland fires.

    “River flow generally increases in the months following wildland fires8”

    From Burned forests impact water supplies (2018) · cites this paper as [8]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bart, R. R.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Bart, Ryan R.
Venue
Water Resources Research
Published
2016-02
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
1465-1478
ISSN
  • 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7973
OpenAlex
W2270337893
Cited by
67
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4
FWCI
4.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Water Resources Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Hydrology and Drought Analysis
Keywords
burned area, vegetation recovery, paired watersheds, ungauged basins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review