Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Post‐fire runoff and erosion from simulated rainfall on small plots, Colorado Front Range

Benavides‐Solorio, Juan, MacDonald, Lee H·2001·Hydrological Processes

Abstract

An Erratum has been published for this article in Hydrological Processes 16(5) 2002, 1131–1133. Wildfires in the Colorado Front Range can trigger dramatic increases in runoff and erosion. A better understanding of the causes of these increases is needed to predict the effects of future wildfires, estimate runoff and erosion risks from prescribed fires, and design effective post‐fire rehabilitation treatments. The objective of this project was to determine whether runoff and sediment yields were significantly related to the site variables of burn severity, percent cover, soil water repellency, soil moisture, time since burning, and slope. To eliminate the variability due to natural rainfall events, we applied an artificial storm of approximately 80 mm h−1 on 26 1 m 2 plots in the summer and fall of 2000. The plots were distributed among a June 2000 wildfire, a November 1999 prescribed fire, and a July 1994 wildfire. For 23 of the 26 plots the ratio of runoff to rainfall exceeded 50%. Nearly all sites exhibited strong natural or fire‐induced water repellency, so the runoff ratios were only 15–30% larger for the high‐severity plots in the two more recent fires than for the unburned or low‐severity plots. The two high‐severity plots in the 1994 wildfire had very low runoff ratios, and this probably was due to the high soil moisture conditions at the time of the simulated rainfall and the resulting reduction in the natural water repellency. Sediment yields from the high‐severity sites in the two more recent fires were 10–26 times greater than the unburned and low‐severity plots. The plots burned at high severity in 1994 yielded only slightly more sediment than the unburned plots. Percent ground cover explained 81% of the variability in sediment yields, and the sediment yields from the plots in the 1994 wildfire are consistent with the observed recovery in percent ground cover. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

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/hyp.383

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 354

Metadata

Authors
Benavides‐Solorio, J., & MacDonald, L. H.
Venue
Hydrological Processes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-10-25
Volume
15
Issue
15
Pages
2931-2952
ISSN
  • 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1085
OpenAlex
W1975869979
Cited by
354
References
1
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.