Cited by 122Fire effects on ecosystemsSoil and Unsaturated FlowSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing

Relations between soil hydraulic properties and burn severity

Open access
Moody, John A., Ebel, Brian A., Nyman, Petter, Martin, Deborah A., Stoof, Cathelijne, McKinley, Randy·2016·International Journal of Wildland Fire

Abstract

Wildfire can affect soil hydraulic properties, often resulting in reduced infiltration. The magnitude of change in infiltration varies depending on the burn severity. Quantitative approaches to link burn severity with changes in infiltration are lacking. This study uses controlled laboratory measurements to determine relations between a remotely sensed burn severity metric (dNBR, change in normalised burn ratio) and soil hydraulic properties (SHPs). SHPs were measured on soil cores collected from an area burned by the 2013 Black Forest fire in Colorado, USA. Six sites with the same soil type were selected across a range of burn severities, and 10 random soil cores were collected from each site within a 30-m diameter circle. Cumulative infiltration measurements were made in the laboratory using a tension infiltrometer to determine field-saturated hydraulic conductivity, Kfs, and sorptivity, S. These measurements were correlated with dNBR for values ranging from 124 (low severity) to 886 (high severity). SHPs were related to dNBR by inverse functions for specific conditions of water repellency (at the time of sampling) and soil texture. Both functions had a threshold value for dNBR between 124 and 420, where Kfs and S were unchanged and equal to values for soil unaffected by fire. For dNBRs >~420, the Kfs was an exponentially decreasing function of dNBR and S was a linearly decreasing function of dNBR. These initial quantitative empirical relations provide a first step to link SHPs to burn severity, and can be used in quantitative infiltration models to predict post-wildfire infiltration and resulting runoff.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wf14062

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moody, J. A., Ebel, B. A., Nyman, P., Martin, D. A., Stoof, C., & McKinley, R.
Affiliations
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • Colorado School of Mines (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Moody, John A.
Venue
International Journal of Wildland Fire
Published
2015-03-24
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
279-293
ISSN
  • 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5516
OpenAlex
W2164183436
Cited by
122
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Wildland Fire (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Soil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Keywords
burn severity, soil hydraulic properties, infiltration, saturated hydraulic conductivity, sorptivity, wildfire effects on soil, water repellency, soil texture, tension infiltrometer

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