IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v111y2021ics0264837721004993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post-fire practices benefits on vegetation recovery and soil conservation in a Mediterranean area

Author

Listed:
  • López-Vicente, Manuel
  • Cerdà, Artemi
  • Kramer, Henk
  • Keesstra, Saskia

Abstract

Post-fire practices (PFP) aim to reduce soil erosion and favour vegetation recovery, but their effectiveness is spatially heterogeneous and under debate because of the economic and environmental costs. This study evaluates the different changes (Δ) of canopy cover (CC), sediment connectivity (SC) and local topography in four areas affected by the Pinet fire in eastern Spain (August 8th, 2018) and managed with: totally burnt with tree removal and long log erosion barriers (LEBs) (Pinet-1), partially burnt without PFP (Pinet-2), totally burnt with tree removal and short LEBs (Pinet-3), and totally burnt without PFP (Pinet-4). An unburnt nearby area was used as control site (Pinet-5). High-resolution images obtained before the fire and during two drone flights after the fire (10.5 and 5.5 months after the fire and PFP; and 18 and 13 months after the fire and PFP) were analysed; and LiDAR- and SfM-derived digital elevation models used to compute the Aggregated Index of SC (AICv2). After correcting calculations, because of the different input sources, and excluding the forest roads (x¯=3.6% of the total surface), CC in the first post-fire scenario was of 25.5% (−40.4% with respect to the pre-fire scenario), 14.5% (−68.4%), 23.8% (−43.7%), 26.9% (−26.5%) and 29.6% (−32.7%) in Pinet-1, P-2_totally_burnt, P-2_partially_burnt, P-3 and P-4; and ΔCC among the drone flights were of +2.45%, +0.02% and +10.54% in Pinet-1, Pinet-3 and Pinet-4. The annual CC recovery rate decrease from 27.5% to 19.1% per year between the first and the second post-fire scenario, indicating a quick vegetation recovery, especially in the first year, and considering the surface area covered by rocks (x¯=16.3%). Topographic changes indicated that not install LEBs favoured shorter flow length pathways after the fire, and thus, runoff will flow faster to cover the same area, achieving higher velocity and thus soil detachment capacity. Sediment connectivity increased in all burnt sub-sites after the fire (Δ1¯=+32.4%), but the increments in the two sub-sites with LEBs were 36% lower than the increase in the sub-sites without LEBs. The increase of connectivity in the first and second post-fire scenarios was −32% and −45% in the sub-site with long LEBs compared with the sub-site with short LEBs. Overall, LEBs effectively favoured vegetation recovery, lengthened overland flow pathways, and reduced sediment transport in the early months, but their usefulness was not as pronounced during the second post-fire year, although these results may be influenced by the Mediterranean conditions of the site.

Suggested Citation

  • López-Vicente, Manuel & Cerdà, Artemi & Kramer, Henk & Keesstra, Saskia, 2021. "Post-fire practices benefits on vegetation recovery and soil conservation in a Mediterranean area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:111:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004993
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105776
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721004993
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105776?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:111:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004993. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.