Hydrologic and erosion responses to wildfire along the rangeland–xeric forest continuum in the western US: a review and model of hydrologic vulnerability
Abstract
The recent increase in wildfire activity across the rangeland–xeric forest continuum in the western United States has landscape-scale consequences in terms of runoff and erosion. Concomitant cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) invasions, plant community transitions and a warming climate in recent decades along grassland–shrubland–woodland–xeric forest transitions have promoted frequent and large wildfires, and continuance of the trend appears likely if warming climate conditions prevail. These changes potentially increase overall hydrologic vulnerability by spatially and temporally increasing soil exposure to runoff and erosion processes. Plot and hillslope-scale studies demonstrate burning may increase event runoff or erosion by factors of 2–40 over small-plot scales and more than 100-fold over large-plot to hillslope scales. Reports of flooding and debris flow events from rangelands and xeric forests following burning show the potential risk to natural resources, property, infrastructure and human life. We present a conceptual model for evaluating post-fire hydrologic vulnerability and risk. We suggest that post-fire risk assessment of potential hydrologic hazards should adopt a probability-based approach that considers varying site susceptibility in conjunction with a range of potential storms and that determines the hydrologic response magnitudes likely to affect values-at-risk. Our review suggests that improved risk assessment requires better understanding in several key areas including quantification of interactions between varying storm intensities and measures of site susceptibility, the varying effects of soil water repellency, and the spatial scaling of post-fire hydrologic response across rangeland–xeric forest plant communities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Headwater forests are now susceptible to wildland fire risk or will become so in the near future.
“these forests are now susceptible to wildland fire risk or will become so in the near future6,7.”
From Burned forests impact water supplies (2018) · cites this paper as [6]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 187 · Cited by 66
- Authors
- Williams, C. J., Pierson, F. B., Robichaud, P. R., & Boll, J.
- Affiliations
- Agricultural Research Service (US)
- US Forest Service (US)
- University of Idaho (US)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, C. Jason
- Venue
- International Journal of Wildland Fire
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2014-02-06
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 155-172
- ISSN
- 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
- 1448-5516
- OpenAlex
- W2003414721
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 187
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 4.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Wildland Fire (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Interagency Fire Center
- U.S. Bureau of Land Management
- Topics
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Keywords
- forest fires, soil erosion, runoff, risk assessment, cheatgrass invasion, cheatgrass, soil water repellency, storm intensity, spatial scaling, debris flows, floods, global warming, American West
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