Cited by 67Fire effects on ecosystemsEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyEnvironmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies

Effects of ashes from a Brazilian savanna wildfire on water, soil and biota: an ecotoxicological approach.

Oliveira-Filho, Eduardo C., Brito, Darlan Q., Dias, Zelia M.B., Guarieiro, Mayara S., Carvalho, Esther L., Fascineli, Maria L., Niva, Cintia C., Grisolia, Cesar K.·2018·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

Wildfire is very common in Brazilian savannas, and its effects on water, soil and aquatic/soil organisms are poorly understood. In this study, we observed the effects of fire, especially of ashes, on surface soil and subsurface water in a typical Brazilian savanna (Cerrado sensu strictu) for one year. Soil analyses (pH, organic matter content, potential acidity, K, Ca, Mg and P) and subsurface water analyses (NO 3-, PO 43- Mg 2+, Ca 2+ and K+) were assessed. We evaluated the ecotoxicological effects of ashes on three different endpoints and species, in fish Danio rerio (embryonic development), aquatic snail Biomphalaria glabrata (reproduction) and a soil species Enchytraeus sp. (reproduction). We found a higher amount of exchangeable cations and organic matter content in short-term fire effects on soil, but the higher availability of nutrients did not affect the soil pH in field plots. The effects of ashes on soil and subsurface water did not persist for one-year post-fire, except for organic matter content in burned areas. No toxic effects were observed on hatching success and incidences of developmental abnormalities in D. rerio embryos. However, ash input had adverse effects on reproduction in snails and enchytraeids. We reported a statistically significant decrease in snail eggs exposed to the 50g.L-1 and 100g.L-1 of ashes after four weeks (p<0.05, Dunnett's test and Tukey test). Enchytraeus sp. reproduction was negatively influenced by the natural soil, which presents high acidity, and also when exposed directly to the ashes from burned area, suggesting that pH and other ash compounds may limit the growth of enchytraeids. More studies in burned areas are strongly encouraged, addressing the potential important routes of exposure to ashes in order to understand the impact of intense fires on soil and aquatic biota in tropical savannas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.051

Cites

89 of 89 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?

  • Highly variable impacts of ash contamination on freshwater biota have been reported between different ecosystems, types of ash, fires and species.

    “Highly variable impacts of ash contamination on freshwater biota have been reported between different ecosystems, types of ash, fires and species (Smith et al. 2011;Silva et al. 2015;Oliveira-Filho et al. 2018).”
  • Key areas receiving particular attention are the production and mobilisation of PAHs and heavy metals.

    “Key areas receiving particular attention as a result of concern about their environmental effects are the production and mobilisation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals (e.g.Vila-Escale ´et al. 2007;Campos et al. 2012;Oliveira-Filho et al. 2018).”
  • Ash has begun to receive increasing recognition as a source of diffuse contamination in freshwater systems, and detrimental impacts on lake and stream biota including fish, amphibians, macroinvertebrates and algae have been observed.

    “Ash has also begun to receive increasing recognition as a source of diffuse contamination in freshwater systems and detrimental impacts on both lake and stream biota, including fish (e.g.Nunes et al. 2017;Oliveira-Filho et al. 2018;Gonino et al. 2019a), amphibians (Pilliod et al. 2003), macroinvertebrates (Brito et al. 2017) and algae (Campos et al. 2012) have all been observed.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oliveira-Filho, E. C., Brito, D. Q., Dias, Z. M. B., Guarieiro, M. S., Carvalho, E. L., Fascineli, M. L., Niva, C. C., & Grisolia, C. K.
Affiliations
  • Embrapa (BR)
  • Universidade de Brasília (BR)
  • University Center of Brasília (BR)
Corresponding author
Oliveira-Filho, Eduardo C.
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
618
Pages
101-111
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2767636019
Cited by
67
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (478637/2012-8)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Environmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies
Keywords
wildfire ash, savanna burning, Cerrado, ecotoxicology, soil properties, subsurface water quality, soil organic matter, soil pH, exchangeable cations, nutrient availability, Enchytraeus, soil invertebrates, aquatic organisms, post-fire recovery
MeSH terms
Wildfires, Animals, Brazil, Soil, Water, Ecotoxicology, Biota, Grassland

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