Search

Wildfires usually increase the hydrological and erosive response of forest areas, carrying high environmental, human, cultural, and financial on- and off-site effects. Post-fire soil erosion control measures have been proven effective at mitigating such responses, especially at the slope scale, but there is a knowledge gap as to how cost-effective these treatments are. In this work, we review the effectiveness of post-fire soil erosion mitigation treatments at reducing erosion rates over the first post-fire year and provide their application costs. This allowed assessing the treatments’ cost-effectiveness (CE), expressed as the cost of preventing 1 Mg of soil loss. This assessment involved a total of 63 field study cases, extracted from 26 publications from the USA, Spain, Portugal, and Canada, and focused on the role of treatment types and materials, and countries. Treatments providing a protective ground cover showed the best median CE (895 $ Mg−1), especially agricultural straw mulch (309 $ Mg−1), followed by wood-residue mulch (940 $ Mg−1) and hydromulch (2332 $ Mg−1). Barriers showed a relatively low CE (1386 $ Mg−1), due to their reduced effectiveness and elevated implementation costs. Seeding showed a good CE (260 $ Mg−1), but this reflected its low costs rather than its effectiveness to reduce soil erosion. The present results confirmed that post-fire soil erosion mitigation treatments are cost-effective as long as they are applied in areas where the post-fire erosion rates exceed the tolerable erosion rate thresholds (>1 Mg−1 ha−1 y−1) and are less costly than the loss of on- and off-site values that they are targeted to protect. For this reason, the proper assessment of post-fire soil erosion risk is vital to ensure that the available financial, human and material resources are applied appropriately.

This dataset describes the chemical and physical properties of wildfire ash collected following wildland fires in different ecosystems and burn severity conditions across the globe. For the chemical properties, ash was collected from sampling sites across eight countries (Australia, Canada, South Africa, US, UK, The Netherlands, Spain and Austria). For the physical properties, ash was collected from four locations in Tenerife (Spain), Victoria (Australia), Manchester (UK) and Idaho (US).

The 2019/2020 Australian bushfires (or wildfires) burned the largest forested area in Australia's recorded history, with major socio-economic and environmental consequences. Among the largest fires was the 280 000 ha Green Wattle Creek Fire, which burned large forested areas of the Warragamba catchment. This protected catchment provides critical ecosystem services for Lake Burragorang, one of Australia's largest urban supply reservoirs delivering ~85% of the water used in Greater Sydney. Water New South Wales (WaterNSW) is the utility responsible for managing water quality in Lake Burragorang. Its postfire risk assessment, done in collaboration with researchers in Australia, the UK, and United States, involved (i) identifying pyrogenic contaminants in ash and soil; (ii) quantifying ash loads and contaminant concentrations across the burned area; and (iii) estimating the probability and quantity of soil, ash, and associated contaminant entrainment for different rainfall scenarios. The work included refining the capabilities of the new WEPPcloud-WATAR-AU model (Water Erosion Prediction Project cloud-Wildfire Ash Transport And Risk-Australia) for predicting sediment, ash, and contaminant transport, aided by outcomes from previous collaborative postfire research in the catchment. Approximately two weeks after the Green Wattle Creek Fire was contained, an extreme rainfall event (~276 mm in 72 h) caused extensive ash and sediment delivery into the reservoir. The risk assessment informed on-ground monitoring and operational mitigation measures (deployment of debris-catching booms and adjustment of the water supply system configuration), ensuring the continuity of safe water supply to Sydney. WEPPcloud-WATAR-AU outputs can prioritize recovery interventions for managing water quality risks by quantifying contaminants on the hillslopes, anticipating water contamination risk, and identifying areas with high susceptibility to ash and sediment transport. This collaborative inter