Surface runoff and erosion after prescribed burning and the effect of different fire regimes in forests and shrublands: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the state of knowledge about the effects of prescribed burning on surface runoff and erosion at point to catchment scales in forests and shrublands. Fires can increase surface runoff and erosion by removing vegetation, changing soil hydrologic properties and providing a readily erodible layer of sediment and ash. Catchment-scale studies in prescribed-burnt areas usually report minimal impacts from the burn. However, measurements at smaller spatial scales suggest that large changes to hydrologic properties and processes do occur, and a debris-flow example from Australia demonstrates that large catchment-scale impacts are possible. It appears that existing catchment-scale studies in prescribed burns do not capture these large events as the sample size (i.e. number of studies) is too small relative to the infrequency of such events. Furthermore, numerous knowledge gaps across all spatial scales limit understanding of the processes contributing to post-prescribed burn runoff and erosion. Understanding the influence of fire regime characteristics on post-fire runoff and erosion is particularly important in the context of prescribed burning, as fire regimes can be manipulated to reduce erosion and water-quality impacts. Therefore, two directions for future research are recommended: (1) process-based studies to understand the factors controlling surface runoff and erosion, particularly in relation to aspects of the fire regime; and (2) landscape-scale surveys to quantify large erosion events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".