Cited by 89Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsFire effects on ecosystemsSoil erosion and sediment transport

Pre- and post-fire pollutant loads in an urban fringe watershed in Southern California

Burke, M. P., Hogue, T. S., Kinoshita, A. M., Barco, J., Wessel, C., Stein, E. D.·2013·Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Abstract

Post-fire runoff has the potential to be a large source of contaminants to downstream areas. However, the magnitude of this effect in urban fringe watersheds adjacent to large sources of airborne contaminants is not well documented. The current study investigates the impacts of wildfire on stormwater contaminant loading from the upper Arroyo Seco watershed, burned in 2009. This watershed is adjacent to the Greater Los Angeles, CA, USA area and has not burned in over 60 years. Consequently, it acts as a sink for regional urban pollutants and presents an opportunity to study the impacts of wildfire. Pre- and post-fire storm samples were collected and analyzed for basic cations, trace metals, and total suspended solids. The loss of vegetation and changes in soil properties from the fire greatly increased the magnitude of storm runoff, resulting in sediment-laden floods carrying high concentrations of particulate-bound constituents. Post-fire concentrations and loads were up to three orders of magnitude greater than pre-fire values for many trace metals, including lead and cadmium. A shift was also observed in the timing of chemical delivery, where maximum suspended sediment, trace metal, and cation concentrations coincided with, rather than preceded, peak discharge in the post-fire runoff, amplifying the fire's impacts on mass loading. The results emphasize the importance of sediment delivery as a primary mechanism for post-fire contaminant transport and suggest that traditional…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10661-013-3318-9

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burke, M. P., Hogue, T. S., Kinoshita, A. M., Barco, J., Wessel, C., & Stein, E. D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (US)
Corresponding author
Hogue, T. S.
Venue
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Published
2013-08-04
Volume
185
Issue
12
Pages
10131-10145
ISSN
  • 0167-6369 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2959
OpenAlex
W1975219066
Cited by
89
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Medellín Journals (University of Medellín) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Medellín Journals (University of Medellín) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
wildfire effects, post-fire runoff, stormwater pollution, trace metals, lead, cadmium, suspended sediment, cations, pollutant load, stormwater management
MeSH terms
California, Disasters, Environmental Monitoring, Fires, Rain, Trace Elements, Water Movements, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Supply

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