Next Article in Journal
Numerical Simulation of Ethanol Air Diffusion Flame Quenching under Transverse AC Electric Field
Next Article in Special Issue
Fire Impacts on Water Resources: A Remote Sensing Methodological Proposal for the Brazilian Cerrado
Previous Article in Journal
A Method of Detecting Candidate Regions and Flames Based on Deep Learning Using Color-Based Pre-Processing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Role of Ash on Pore Clogging and Hydraulic Properties of Ash-Covered Soils under Laboratory Experiments
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fire
Volume 5
Issue 6
10.3390/fire5060195
fire-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Response of Soil Physicochemical Properties in the Hyrcanian Forests of Iran to Forest Fire Events

by
Zahra Fadaei
1,
Ataollah Kavian
1,*,
Karim Solaimani
1,
Leila Zandi Sarabsoreh
2,
Mahin Kalehhouei
3,
Víctor Hugo Durán Zuazo
4 and
Jesus Rodrigo-Comino
5,*
1
Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University (SANRU), Sari 68984, Iran
2
Department of Rangeland Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University (SANRU), Sari 68984, Iran
3
Department of Watershed Management Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Nour 46417-76489, Iran
4
IFAPA Centro Camino de Purchil, s/n, 18004 Granada, Spain
5
Departamento de Análisis Geográfico Regional y Geografía Física, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fire 2022, 5(6), 195; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5060195
Submission received: 1 September 2022 / Revised: 9 November 2022 / Accepted: 10 November 2022 / Published: 17 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Assessment of Fire Impacts on Hydrology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
When forest fires occur, highly complex effects on soil properties and hydrological processes are activated. However, in countries such as Iran, these consequences are not widely studied and there is a lack of studies. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to investigate the effects of wildfire on soil quality characteristics in a representative forest area located in the Hyrcanian forests, specifically, in the Zarrinabad watershed of Sari. For this purpose, four different sites, including unburnt natural (UNF), burned natural (BNF), unburnt plantation (UPF), and burned plantation forests (BPF) were selected. Soil sampling was performed at each site using the random, systematic method at a depth from 0 to 30 cm. To investigate the effects of fire on physical and chemical properties indicators, 10 plots with dimensions of 0.5 × 0.5 m were placed at a distance of 1.5 m from each other at each site. Soil samples were transported to the laboratory and their physical and chemical properties were determined. The results showed that the percentage of sand, silt, aggregate stability, soil hydrophobicity, organic carbon, organic matter, soil total nitrogen, absorbable potassium and phosphorus, electrical conductivity, and pH, increased significantly when the soil surface is burned (p ≤ 0.01, p ≤ 0.05). However, clay percentage, initial, final, and average infiltration in the burned areas showed a decreasing trend in comparison with other forest statuses. Furthermore, no significant effects were observed on the true and bulk density, porosity, and soil moisture (p ≥ 0.05). These findings demonstrate that forest fire effects in Iran must be considered as a key topic for land managers because soil properties and hydrological processes are drastically modified, and land degradation could be irreparably activated.

1. Introduction

Soils are key components of natural and human-made ecosystems that control the flow and storage of water and nutrients, affecting biological, physical, and chemical processes [1]. It is well-known that soil is a major component of forest and pasture ecosystems, consisting of a mixture of mineral particles, organic matter (OM), water, air, and living organisms [2,3]. Moreover, soil contributes to the growth and development of natural ecosystems, which directly benefit humankind [4,5,6]. Nowadays, much research is conducted to demonstrate the importance of soils, but forest areas affected by fire after human intervention need to be further investigated [7,8,9], especially in countries such as Iran.
Forests account for 29% of the Earth’s ecosystem and are scattered throughout the world [10]. The main factors contributing to soil degradation in forest ecosystems are soil erosion, soil contamination, earthquakes, floods, storms, and fires [11,12]. In forest ecosystems, major land degradation processes include fire, deforestation, erosion, and pollution [13]. One of the most common hazards of forest watersheds is forest fires [14,15,16]. Future changes in the fire regime effect the composition of forests in terms of species, as some of them are adapted to other ecological patterns. Therefore, designing sustainable fire management is a challenge due to the elevated increase in fire weather severity conditions, which could push current suppression capacity beyond a tipping point, resulting in a substantial increase in large wildfires [17]. Fire is common and highly vulnerable in most of the world’s forest ecosystems [18], which can change the function of natural ecosystems. Albeit recently, this may be a serious threat because of their social, environmental, and economic impacts [19]. Fire is a significant factor in the dynamics of terrestrial ecosystems, influencing numerous attributes, functions, and processes [20], and is often aggravated by human activities such as deliberate and accidental fires [21,22]. Human negligence, intentional construction fires, and the increased acreage of agricultural land are the most common causes of human fires [23,24,25].
Various investigations have focused on inter-fire feedback on the physical and chemical properties of the soil [26,27,28,29]. Based on previous literature, the response to forest fires effects the soil in two ways: the combustion of organic matter and, indirectly, changes in other components of the ecosystem, such as physical and chemical properties [30,31,32,33]. Uncommon decreases in humidity or increases in temperature may involve a high probability of outbreaks of recent nearby fires [34], and cause soil degradation processes such as compaction, increasing the loss of soil moisture content and decreasing the porosity, with direct implications in runoff activation [35]. After a fire, forest pH and available soil nutrient concentrations are also modified [36,37]. In Asian countries like Iran, forest studies are rare and there is no land management program in vulnerable regions [38,39]. Iran is among the 56 poorest countries in the world in terms of forest quality, where thousands of hectares are burned each. Forest fires destroy more than 6000 hectares of forest lands of Iran every year [40]. Furthermore, according to FAO, between 1998 and 2002, an average of 6500 hectares of Iran’s forests were destroyed annually by fire, which was related to climatic and human factors [41].
Currently, just a few studies have documented the impact of forest fires on Iranian soils. For example, Jafarian et al. [42] showed how infiltration changes during different seasons of the Charat watershed in the province of Mazandaran. They observed that areas without, or low-intensity, fire were not significantly different in terms of infiltration, but in severe areas, the final infiltration was lower than in other seasons. In another research, Magomani and Tol [43] showed that wildfire generates a significant negative impact on aggregate stability and bulk density, as well as other soil physical properties in semi-arid savannah environments in Iran. Alli et al. [44], in the forests of the Zaribar Lake watershed, showed that fire caused a significant increase in soil total nitrogen (STN), and in total phosphorus and extractable potassium in the short-term, respectively. However, in the long-term, only the extractable potassium returns reached stable levels. Arunrat et al. [45] reported that fire did not register significant changes in soil organic carbon (SOC), STN, and other soil properties (soil texture, available P, exchangeable K, Ca and Mg, bulk density, and OM), due to low fire intensity and short fire duration, and only pH and electrical conductivity significantly increased (p ≤ 0.05).
The Hyrcanian forests of Northern Iran are one of the most important natural ecosystems and several studies agree that they play an important role in soil and water conservation, and in the livelihoods of indigenous populations [46]. However, forest fires are occurring there and land managers, stakeholders, and scientists, do not have enough information to understand how soils are responding. Consequently, there is always uncertainty regarding the negative or positive impacts of fire on soil properties and forest cover in the Hyrcanian lands. Thus, this study is intended to research the short- (2013), and long-term (2019) effects of fire on certain soil properties (physicochemical and hydrological) in two different situations: natural, and planted forests.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

The study area is located close to the village of Zarrinabad in the city of Sari, in Northern Iran, near the Caspian Sea. For the present study, two similar areas, which were affected by fire in 2013, were selected. One of the areas has a plantation forest and the other one has a natural forest (Figure 1). The mean temperature, precipitation, and relative humidity of the studied area are 612.9 mm, 15.4 °C, and 60–77%, respectively. The forests are generally located in the lower part of the region from 385 to 750 m.a.s.l. The area of the fire in the planted forest was 17661 m2 and in the natural forest 6074 m2, with a general inclination of 30%. Trees are deciduous species including Fagus, Qak, Carpinus betulus, Alnus, Ulmus minor, Parotica persica, and Gleditsia capsica. Shrubs include Mespilus germanica, Crataegus elbursensis, Crataegus monogyna, and Lycopersicum esculentum. Regarding herbaceous and woody species of forest floor, we can find Primula vulgaris, Rubus strigosus, Euphorbia antiquorum, and Polypodiopsida.

2.2. Study Area, Data Collection and Soil Sampling

In the study area, fires occurred without non-known reasons in natural and plantation forests in 2013. In July 2019, to study and compare the effect of fire on soil properties in these forests, unburnt treatments (controls) were considered. Finally, four treatments by means of unburnt natural (UNF), burned natural (BNF), unburnt plantation (UPF), and burned plantation forests (BPF) were selected (Figure 2). In order to avoid errors caused by spatial changes in soil characteristics, the control samples were selected in the vicinity of the treatment samples in such a way that there is no effect of fire in that place. The sampling direction was perpendicular to the slope, and the fire site should be selected in such a way that there are no differences in parent materials, topography (slope, direction, and height), physiography, and vegetation in the repeated sampling locations. To investigate the effects of fire on hydrological characteristics, erosion, and other qualitative factors of soil, 10 plots with dimensions of 0.5 × 0.5 m were established at a distance of 1.5 m from each other. Considering the control samples, this research had four treatments with 10 repetitions, and a total of 40 soil composite samples were collected from the investigated area. Soil sampling from 0–30 cm soil depth was carried out randomly and systematically from the area. After sampling, they were transferred to the laboratory. Subsequently, a soil sample was divided into two parts, air-dried, and sieved into a 2 mm sieve to remove the plant debris.

2.3. Measurement of Soil Physical Properties

Soil moisture content was measured by the weighting and drying method, soil texture was estimated using the hydrometric method [47,48], bulk density using the gravel method [49,50], and true density with a pycnometer (Figure 3a). In detail, we will explain how porosity, aggregate stability, soil hydrophobicity and permeability were measured.

2.3.1. Soil Hydrophobicity Measurement

Soil hydrophobicity is defined as the effort of wetting the soil with water [51]. This effect may be related to several variables, such as soil size, OM type, and mineralogical composition, among others. Soil hydrophobicity can therefore vary greatly from a spatial and temporal perspective [52]. A water droplet infiltration time test (WDPT) was used [53,54]. For each soil sample, a few drops of distilled water was placed on the soil surface using a micro-micropipette, and the time was grouped into different categories [55], as Table 1 shows.

2.3.2. Soil Permeability

The water permeability of the soil was measured with a double-ring infiltrometer [56,57]. This device is characterized by a double-ring with diameters of 30 and 60 cm and a height of 25 cm, respectively [58,59,60]. We placed the double ring infiltrometer in the center of each plot and, with the help of a hammer, we stroked evenly on the edge of the ring to place them at a depth of 10–15 cm. After installing both rings and before pouring water into them, the bottom of the middle ring was covered with plastic foil to prevent the surface layer from corroding [61]. After pouring water into the middle and outer rings, the plastic of the middle ring surface was gently pulled and at this moment, the time was recorded with a stopwatch. Water level drop was recorded after different times using an Ashl (Figure 3b).

2.4. Measurement of Soil Chemical Properties

Soil pH was measured by the potentiometric method [62,63], electrical conductivity by an electric conduction device (EC meter) and preparation of soil and water extract with a ratio of 1:2.5 [64]. SOC was determined by the Walkley-Black method [65,66]. The “Van Bemmelen factor” of 1.724 has been used to calculate the final OM (%) as follows [67]:
OM (%) = SOC (%) × 1.724
Moreover, STN was estimated by the Kjeldahl method [68], soil-absorbable potassium using a flame photometer [69], and soil absorbable phosphorus was measured following the Olsen method [70,71].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Using the SPSS v. 22 (software IBM, New York, NY, USA), the data normality test was performed, for which Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were used [72,73]. Then, two-way ANOVA was used to compare soil characteristics in both paired conditions after obtaining the normality of the data. Additionally, the comparison of the average soil’s physical and chemical properties was carried out using the Duncan test at a confidence level of 1 and 5%. The Pearson coefficient is used to test the linear correlation between two random variables [74]. The value of this coefficient can vary between −1 to 1, where 1 means complete positive correlation, 0 means no correlation, and −1 means complete negative one.

3. Results

3.1. Physical and Chemical Properties of The Soil

Table 2 presents the results of the two-way analysis of the variance of the independent effect of the fire, the type of plot, and the interaction of the fire-affected area for different physical and chemical properties. Results obtained from the Pearson correlation analysis showed that there was no significant relationship at the 5% level between SOM and hydrophobicity level (Table 3). The results of comparing the means by the Duncan method showed that the natural BNF registered the highest aggregate stability (0.25%) and UPF the lowest (0.11%) (Figure 4a). The highest rate of hydrophobicity (12.26 s) was correlated with the BPF and the lowest with the UNF (2.03 s) (Figure 4b). True and bulk density was the highest (2.91, 1.77 g/cm3) in the BNF, respectively, and registered the lowest true and bulk density (2.81 and 1.62 g/cm3) in the UNF (Figure 4c, d). The percentage of soil porosity in the UNF obtained the highest rate (44.2%) and in the BPF the lowest (41.2%) (Figure 3e). Regarding the soil texture, the highest percentage of sand and silt (46.9 and 46%, respectively) was in the BNF, and the lowest in the UNF (31 and 39.3%, respectively) (Figure 4f, g). The percentage of clay in the UNF registered the highest rate (23%) and in the BPF reached the lowest (13.4%) (Figure 4h). The soil moisture content in the UNF obtained the highest rates (34.5%) and the BPF showed the lowest (26%) (Figure 4i). Regarding the initial, final, and average infiltration rates, in the UNF, we obtained the highest rate (145.85, 5.37 and 26.13 mm/min, respectively) the initial, and final infiltration rates in the BNF (37.5 and 1.8 mm/ min, respectively) and the average infiltration rate in the BPF (5.36 mm/min) were the lowest (Figure 4j–l).

3.2. Soil Chemical Properties

Table 4 shows the results of a two-way analysis of variance considering the independent effect of fire, plot type, and the interaction of fire × plot type for different soil chemical properties. The results of comparing the means by Duncan’s method showed that the BNF obtained the highest electrical conductivity (0.62 ds/m) and the UPF (0.47 ds/m) the lowest (Figure 5a). Additionally, pH was the highest in the BNF (6.52) and the lowest in the UNF (6.17) (Figure 5b). SOC and OM reached the highest amount in the BNF (5.26 and 9.02%, respectively) and the lowest values in the UPF (2.93 and 5.2%) (Figure 5c,d). Regarding this characteristic was found in the BNF (7.93 ppm) and the lowest in the UPF (4.24 ppm) (Figure 5e). Additionally, absorbable potassium registered the highest amount (560.87 ppm) in the BNF and the lowest (410.07 ppm) in the UPF (Figure 5f). Finally, the highest STN (0.3%) occurred in the BNF and the lowest levels (0.24%) in the UPF (Figure 5g).

4. Discussion

In this study, fire demonstrated direct and indirect impacts on soils under different forest ecosystems. Direct effects include rapid combustion and the decomposition of litter, increased mineral availability, and changes in soil temperature and humidity. Although indirect effects from a fire are associated with changes in vegetation, these effects included the creation of cavities and the germination and growth of species that need more light in the early stages of growth.

4.1. The Effect of Fire on Soil Physical Characteristics

The response of aggregates to forest fires is complex and depends on the severity of the fire and how it affects other properties, such as OC and hydrophobicity. Aggregate stability is one of the most important factors affecting the flow and transfer of water into the soil. The effects of forest fires on aggregate stability also depend on various factors such as the severity of fires, changes in soil OM and the formation of hydrophobic materials [75]. In this research, results from variance analysis showed that fire increases aggregate stability, especially in the BNF, relative to other plot types. This is due to the formation of a hydrophobic layer (due to the burning of OM) on the outer surface of the aggregates, which as a strong bond prevents the separation of aggregates from each other [76]. The soil OM is considered a strong aggregating agent that holds sand, silt, and clay particles together into aggregates, and it is essential to realize the role it plays during and after burning [77]. The results of this research agree with the results of Rodríguez et al. [78] and Arcenegui et al. [75], while Garrido-Ruiz et al. [79] claimed that burning reduced aggregate stability.
According to the results, the rate of hydrophobicity has increased in BPF, relative to other treatments. This can be due to the burning of soil OM and the formation of hydrophobic compounds on the outer surface of soil particles, and OM can favor hydrophobicity due to the total or partial layer of the surfaces and pores of the soil particles, which form aggregates with hydrophobic organic substances, resulting in different degrees of hydrophobicity [80]. The source of hydrophobicity can be substances derived from plants (aromatic oils, resins, or other hydrophobic compounds), fungi and fungal micro-organisms, humic acids [81], decomposed plant material, and hydrocarbons. Increased soil hydrophobia can result in reduced soil and water content, followed by extensive runoff and soil erosion. Therefore, the decrease in soil nutrients in the years after the fire can be due to the hydrophobic nature of the soil, which is caused by the burning of soil organic matter (SOM), which agrees with the results of Robichaud et al. [82], Stoof et al. [83], and Malvar et al. [84].
Based on the results, the percentage of clay in the burned areas has significantly decreased compared to the unburned areas, and UNF treatment had the highest rate of clay relative to others. Under oak forest, Heydari et al. [85] stated that the clay content in the A horizon decreases following a high-intensity fire. These results agree with the study by Agbeshie et al. [86]. They also noted that the loss of clay particles following a fire led to a gain in sand particles. Likewise, the percentage of sand and silt in the burned areas increased significantly relative to the unburned, and the BNF treatment registered the highest rates of sand and silt relative to others. Granged et al. [87] also reported an increase in the percentage of sand particles as opposed to a decrease in clay particles. The reduction in the percentage of clay due to fire in this study can be attributed to the selective separation of clay particles by raindrops, and the occurrence of erosion after burning the vegetation and bare soil [88]. In this regard, Hamman et al. [89] considered the cause of coarse soil texture after a wildfire as the formation of coarse sand-like particles from clay and silt components due to heat caused by a fire at temperatures above 250 °C. Chowdhury et al. [90] approved that burning increases the amount of sand and silt.
The true and bulk density of the soil in this study increased after the fire, but this change was not statistically significant, which can be attributed to the improvement of aggregate stability after the fire. Additionally, the porosity of the soil did not decrease significantly after the fire. Norouzi [91] attributed the decrease in soil porosity due to fire to the increase in soil bulk density and the decrease in aggregate stability. Similarly, Cerdà and Doerr [92] reported that fire increases the bulk density of the soil, although the changes are not significant.
The results of this study showed that the percentage of soil moisture in the burned treatments decreased compared to the unburned treatments, but the difference was not statistically significant and improved to the level before the fire. This can be due to interactions within the soil and the gradual disappearance of the hydrophobic layer on the surface of soil particles. The results of this study are in disagreement with Fultz et al. [93] whose research concluded that combustion increases soil moisture, but is in agreement with Holden et al. [94], whose research concluded it reduces soil moisture.
The results of this study indicated that the fire in the soil reduced initial, final, and average infiltration. After a fire occurs, the soil surface is exposed to the formation of surface ridges and soil water repellency (hydrophobicity), which increases due to its continuity a few centimeters below the soil surface. In addition, reducing surface cover, such as soil litter, and increasing soil hydrophobicity, reduces the infiltration of water into the soil [31]. These results are in agreement with Tessler et al. [95], and Robichaud et al. [96] whose research concluded that fire burning reduces infiltration.

4.2. The Effect of Fire on Soil Chemical Characteristics

The amount of SOC in the BNF was higher than in other treatments. This can be due to reduced mineralization due to reduced biological activity. The reason for this is the reduction of mineralization due to the reduction of biological activities through the reduction of decomposition of humic substances due to burning, binding of organic carbon with minerals and protection against biochemical decomposition such as aromatic carbon compounds. The transformation of OM into very stable materials, such as the reduction of oxygen and carbon of alkyls and the production of short carbon chains, the production of hydrophobic materials on the soil surface, and the repeated introduction of nitrogen-fixing species in burnt treatments are other reasons [97]. There are various reports of the effects of fire on SOM, with some researchers increasing the amount of OC [98] and others decreasing the amount of SOC [15,99,100].
Soil total nitrogen had a similar process to SOC; measured STN increased after the fire. In this study, SOC content increased significantly due to fire. There was a high correlation between STN and SOC content. Therefore, an increase in STN can be the result of an increase in SOC due to fire. Based on research by Vermeire et al. [101], Gomez-Rey et al. [102], Badía et al. [103], and Montoya et al. [88], we showed that fire reduces STN. However, other studies presented contrary results, for example, Delijani et al. [104], who showed that burning increases the amount of STN.
In the present study, due to fire, the amount of phosphorus and potassium in the soil increased. The number of elements in the BNF was higher than in other treatments. The reason for the increase in the amount of phosphorus that can be used in fire treatment in this study can be due to the burning of OM from vegetation, which has increased the inorganic form of phosphorus and potassium in the soil. The direct supply of these elements in the form of ash into the soil provides an important source of readily available nutrients. The increase of soil phosphorus and potassium in the burned area is due to ash decomposition and the mineralization of organic phosphorus due to heat [103]. Phosphorus and potassium losses through evaporation have also been shown to be very small, while their release due to the decomposition of crop residues or the decomposition of OM by fire can be one of the main reasons for increased phosphorus in burnt soil [105]. Asadian et al. [106] agree that burning increases the amount of phosphorus.
The results of this study indicated that the electrical conductivity in the treatment of burns was significantly higher than in the control areas. Increasing the electrical conductivity of soils under fire increases the number of soluble salts resulting in the ignition of SOM. Additionally, the formation of carbon black after the fire, and the combination of ash with soil, are other factors that increase the electrical conductivity of soil after fire [107]. Fire in soils containing carbonates slightly increase soil pH [108]. Results from this study indicated that fire significantly increased soil pH. Increasing the pH value can be one of the benefits of fire because, with increasing soil reaction, especially in acidic soils, the ability to absorb elements in the soil increases [109]. Increased soil pH after a fire is due to the incomplete combustion of OM and the release of cations, such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus from the composition of OM, and the alkaline nature of ash and the combination of ash with soil, especially hydroxides released from mineral deposits. Abdulraheem et al. [110] and Arunrat et al. [45] confirmed that burning increases the amount of electrical conductivity and pH.

5. Conclusions

In this study, changes in chemical and especially physical characteristics of soil, such as hydrophobicity, and soil permeability over a short-term (7 years) in the forests of lower Zarrinabad, Mazandaran, were investigated. The results showed that fire in these forests has a critical role and effects soil quality characteristics and soil erodibility indicators. In addition, the response of soil quality factors is influenced by a variety of fire parameters, such as fire severity (e.g., amount of OM consumed), recurrence, fire season, and time after the fire. All of these factors have significantly different impacts on fire. In this study, the effect of fire on most of the studied factors was positive, due to the negative effects on hydrophobicity and soil permeability. It can be stated that the change in soil properties due to fire indicates the importance of fire and it is very important to evaluate the soil erodibility properties, as well as to study the changes made in the soil during the recovery period. Therefore, both short-term and long-term studies on the effects of fire on physical and chemical properties are necessary to clarify the role of fire on forest ecosystems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K. and K.S.; methodology, A.K. and Z.F.; investigation, A.K. and L.Z.S.; data curation, A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K., A.K., V.H.D.Z., and J.R.-C.; writing—review and editing, A.K., V.H.D.Z., and J.R.-C.; supervision, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Thanks for the support of Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data of this study was not received from any organization.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhao, D.; Xu, M.; Liu, G.; Ma, L.; Zhang, S.; Xiao, T.; Peng, G. Effect of vegetation type on microstructure of soil aggregates on the Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 242, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Heimsath, A.M.; DiBiase, R.A.; Whipple, K.X. Soil production limits and the transition to bedrock-dominated landscapes. Nat. Geosci. 2012, 5, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lai, X.; Zhu, Q.; Castellano, M.J.; Liao, K. Soil rock fragments: Unquantified players in terrestrial carbon and nitrogen cycles. Geoderma 2022, 406, 115530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kennard, D.K.; Gholz, H.L. Effects of high-and low-intensity fires on soil properties and plant growth in a Bolivian dry forest. Plant Soil 2001, 234, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cusack, D.F.; Karpman, J.; Ashdown, D.; Cao, Q.; Ciochina, M.; Halterman, S.; Lydon, S.; Neupane, A. Global change effects on humid tropical forests: Evidence for biogeochemical and biodiversity shifts at an ecosystem scale. Rev. Geophys. 2016, 54, 523–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Jhariya, M.K.; Singh, L. Effect of fire severity on soil properties in a seasonally dry forest ecosystem of Central India. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 18, 3967–3978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kavian, A.; Allahi, E.; Ziegler, A.D.; Mohamadi, M.A.; Zabihzadeh, S.M.; Hazbavi, Z. Effectiveness of native wood strand mulches for land rehabilitation in Iran under experimental conditions. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; López-Vicente, M.; Kumar, V.; Rodríguez-Seijo, A.; Valkó, O.; Rojas, C.; Pourghasemi, H.R.; Salvati, L.; Bakr, N.; Vaudour, E.; et al. Soil Science Challenges in a New Era: A Transdisciplinary Overview of Relevant Topics. Air Soil Water Res. 2020, 13, 1178622120977491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fernandez-Anez, N.; Krasovskiy, A.; Müller, M.; Vacik, H.; Baetens, J.; Hukić, E.; Kapovic Solomun, M.; Atanassova, I.; Glushkova, M.; Bogunović, I.; et al. Current Wildland Fire Patterns and Challenges in Europe: A Synthesis of National Perspectives. Air Soil Water Res. 2021, 14, 11786221211028184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Komarasamy, D.; Gokuldhev, M.; Hermina, J.J.; Gokulapriya, M.; Manju, M. Review for Detecting Smoke and Fire in Forest using Different Technologies. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 993, 012056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ghazoul, J.; Burivalova, Z.; Garcia-Ulloa, J.; King, L.A. Conceptualizing forest degradation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 622–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Silvério, D.V.; Brando, P.M.; Bustamante, M.M.; Putz, F.E.; Marra, D.M.; Levick, S.R.; Trumbore, S.E. Fire, fragmentation, and windstorms: A recipe for tropical forest degradation. J. Ecol. 2019, 107, 656–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mataix-Solera, J. Alteraciones físicas, químicas y biológicas en suelos afectados por incendios forestales. Contribución a su Conservación y Regeneración. Facultad de Ciencias. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bond-Lamberty, B.; Peckham, S.D.; Ahl, D.E.; Gower, S.T. Fire as the dominant driver of central Canadian boreal forest carbon balance. Nature 2007, 450, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Ulery, A.L.; Graham, R.C.; Goforth, B.R.; Hubbert, K.R. Fire effects on cation exchange capacity of California forest and woodland soils. Geoderma 2017, 286, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kong, J.J.; Yang, J.; Cai, W. Topography controls post-fire changes in soil properties in a Chinese boreal forest. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 2662–2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. De Groot, W.J.; Flannigan, M.D.; Cantin, A.S. Climate change impacts on future boreal fire regimes. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 294, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lucas-Borja, M.E.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Muñoz-Rojas, M.; Plaza-Álvarez, P.A.; Gómez-Sanchez, M.E.; González-Romero, J.; Peña-Molina, E.; Moya, D.; de las Heras, J. Changes in ecosystem properties after post-fire management strategies in wildfire-affected Mediterranean forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 2021, 58, 836–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Xanthopoulos, G.; Athanasiou, M.; Nikiforaki, A.; Kaoukis, K.; Mantakas, G.; Xanthopoulos, P.; Varela, V. Innovative Action for Forest Fire Prevention in Kythira Island, Greece, through Mobilization and Cooperation of the Population: Methodology and Challenges. Sustainability 2022, 14, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Archibald, S.; Lehmann, C.E.; Belcher, C.M.; Bond, W.J.; Bradstock, R.A.; Daniau, A.L.; Dexter, K.G.; Forrestel, E.J.; Greve, M.; He, T.; et al. Biological and geophysical feedbacks with fire in the Earth system. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 033003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Balch, J.K.; Bradley, B.A.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Nagy, R.C.; Fusco, E.J.; Mahood, A.L. Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 2946–2951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lucas-Borja, M.E.; Ortega, R.; Miralles, I.; Plaza-Álvarez, P.A.; González-Romero, J.; Peña-Molina, E.; De las Heras, J. Effects of wildfire and logging on soil functionality in the short-term in Pinus halepensis M. forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 2020, 139, 935–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vadrevu, K.P.; Eaturu, A.; Badarinath, K. Fire risk evaluation using multicriteria analysis—A case study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 166, 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sepehri, Z.; Jafarian, Z.; Kavian, A.; Heydari, G. Effect ash and coal produced from fire on some of soil properties especially water retention. J. Water Soil Sci. 2017, 21, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Eskandari, S.; Oladi, J.; Jalilvand, H.; Sarajian, M.R. Role of human factors on fire occurrence in District Three of Neka Zalemroud forests-Iran. World Appl. Sci. J. 2013, 27, 1146–1150. [Google Scholar]
  26. Fonseca, F.; de Figueiredo, T.; Nogueira, C.; Queirós, A. Effect of prescribed fire on soil properties and soil erosion in a Mediterranean mountain area. Geoderma 2017, 307, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lucas-Borja, M.E.; González-Romero, J.; Plaza-Álvarez, P.A.; Sagra, J.; Gómez, M.E.; Moya, D.; Cerdà, A.; de Las Heras, J. The impact of straw mulching and salvage logging on post-fire runoff and soil erosion generation under Mediterranean climate conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 654, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. García-Comendador, J.; Martínez-Carreras, N.; Fortesa, J.; Borràs, A.; Calsamiglia, A.; Estrany, J. Analysis of post-fire suspended sediment sources by using colour parameters. Geoderma 2020, 379, 114638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Akhzari, D.; Mohammadi, E.; Saedi, K. Studying the effect of fire on some vegetation and soil properties in a semi-arid shrubland (Case study: Kachaleh Rangelands, Kamyaran Region). Ecopersia 2022, 10, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
  30. Neary, D.G.; Klopatek, C.C.; Debano, L.F.; and Ffolliott, P.F. Fire effects on belowground sustainability: A review and synthesis. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 844, 28–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Certini, G. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review. Oecologia 2005, 143, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dooley, S.R.; Treseder, K.K. The effect of fire on microbial biomass: A meta-analysis of field studies. Biogeochemistry 2012, 109, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Singh, D.; Sharma, P.; Kumar, U.; Daverey, A.; Arunachalam, K. Effect of forest fire on soil microbial biomass and enzymatic activity in oak and pine forests of Uttarakhand Himalaya, India. Ecol. Processes 2021, 10, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Toledo-Castro, J.; Caballero-Gil, P.; Rodríguez-Pérez, N.; Santos-González, I.; Hernández-Goya, C.; Aguasca-Colomo, R. Forest fire prevention, detection, and fighting based on fuzzy logic and wireless sensor networks. Complexity 2018, 2018, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hubbert, K.R.; Preisler, H.K.; Wohlgemuth, P.M.; Graham, R.C.; Narog, M.G. Prescribed burning effects on soil physical properties and soil water repellency in a steep chaparral watershed, southern California, USA. Geoderma 2006, 130, 284–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brais, S.; David, P.; Ouimet, R. Impacts of wild fire severity and salvage harvesting on the nutrient balance of jack pine and black spruce boreal stands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 137, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Turner, M.G.; Smithwick, E.A.; Metzger, K.L.; Tinker, D.B.; Romme, W.H. Inorganic nitrogen availability after severe stand-replacing fire in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 4782–4789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. The World Bank. Iran, Islamic Republic of—Cost Assessment of Environmental Degradation 1; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  39. Emadodin, I.; Narita, D.; Bork, H.R. Soil degradation and agricultural sustainability: An overview from Iran. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 611–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Eskandari, S. Investigation on the relationship between climate change and fire in the forests of Golestan Province. Iran. J. For. Range Prot. Res. 2015, 13, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  41. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. State of the World’s Forests 2007; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Press: Rome, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jafarian, Z.; Sepehri, Z. Effect of Fire Intensity on Infiltration Components of Soil in Different Seasons (Case Study: Rangeland Charat sub Watershed in Mazandaran Province). J. Watershed Manag. Res. 2018, 9, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Magomani, M.I.; van Tol, J.J. The impact of fire frequency on selected soil physical properties in a semi-arid savannah Thornveld. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B—Soil Plant Sci. 2019, 69, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alli, I.; Ebrahimi, M.S.; Davari, M. Temporal variations of runoff, erosion and soil nutrients affected by fires in oak forests of Lake Zaribar. Watershed Manag. Res. 2020, 33, 52–65. [Google Scholar]
  45. Arunrat, N.; Sereenonchai, S.; Hatano, R. Effects of fire on soil organic carbon, soil total nitrogen, and soil properties under rotational shifting cultivation in northern Thailand. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 302, 113978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zarandian, A.; Baral, H.; Yavari, A.R.; Jafari, H.R.; Stork, N.E.; Ling, M.A.; Amirnejad, H. Anthropogenic decline of ecosystem services threatens the integrity of the unique Hyrcanian (Caspian) forests in Northern Iran. Forests 2016, 7, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hyun, B.K.; Kim, M.S.; Eom, K.C.; Jo, I.S. A more simplified hydrometer method for soil texture analysis. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fertil. 2000, 33, 153–159. [Google Scholar]
  48. Acevedo, S.E.; Contreras, C.P.; Ávila, C.J.; Bonilla, C.A. Testing the integral suspension pressure method for soil particle size analysis across a range of soil organic matter contents. Int. Agrophysics 2021, 35, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rossi, A.M.; Hirmas, D.R.; Graham, R.C.; Sternberg, P.D. Bulk density determination by automated three-dimensional laser scanning. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72, 1591–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Damptey, F.G.; Birkhofer, K.; Nsiah, P.K.; de la Riva, E.G. Soil properties and biomass attributes in a former gravel mine area after two decades of forest restoration. Land 2020, 9, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Doerr, S.H.; Douglas, P.; Evans, R.C.; Morley, C.P.; Mullinger, N.J.; Bryant, R.; Shakesby, R.A. Effects of heating and post-heating equilibration times on soil water repellency. Soil Res. 2005, 43, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Madsen, M.D.; Zvirzdin, D.L.; Petersen, S.L.; Hopkins, B.G.; Roundy, B.A.; Chandler, D.G. Soil water repellency within a burned piñon–juniper woodland: Spatial distribution, severity, and ecohydrologic implications. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 1543–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Leelamanie, D.A.L.; Karube, J.; Yoshida, A. Characterizing water repellency indices: Contact angle and water drop penetration time of hydrophobized sand. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2008, 54, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hewelke, E.; Gozdowski, D.; Korc, M.; Małuszyńska, I.; Górska, E.B.; Sas, W.; Mielnik, L. Influence of soil moisture on hydrophobicity and water sorptivity of sandy soil no longer under agricultural use. CATENA 2022, 208, 105780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Salifu, E.; El Mountassir, G. Fungal-induced water repellency in sand. Géotechnique 2021, 71, 608–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Paltineanu, C.; Vrinceanu, A.; Lăcătușu, A.R.; Lăcătuşu, R.; Domnariu, H.; Marica, D.; Vizitiu, O. An improved method to study solute leaching in large undisturbed soil columns near field capacity toward the groundwater in various environments. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 15, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Boeno, D.; Gubiani, P.I.; Lier, Q.D.J.V.; Mulazzani, R.P. Estimating lateral flow in double ring infiltrometer measurements. Rev. Bras. De Ciência Do Solo 2021, 45. Available online: https://www.scielo.br/j/rbcs/a/wd3QXpTVp7M3qPBCzdVzZ7d/?lang=en&amp%3Bformat=pdf (accessed on 10 September 2022). [CrossRef]
  58. Gregory, J.H.; Dukes, M.D.; Miller, G.L.; Jones, P.H. Analysis of double-ring infiltration techniques and development of a simple automatic water delivery system. Appl. Turfgrass Sci. 2005, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, M.; Liu, T.; Duan, L.; Luo, Y.; Ma, L.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, Z. The scale effect of double-ring infiltration and soil infiltration zoning in a semi-arid steppe. Water 2019, 11, 1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Khasraei, A.; Abyaneh, H.Z.; Jovzi, M.; Albaji, M. Determining the accuracy of different water infiltration models in lands under wheat and bean cultivation. J. Hydrol. 2021, 603, 127122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dahak, A.; Boutaghane, H.; Merabtene, T. Parameter Estimation and Assessment of Infiltration Models for Madjez Ressoul Catchment, Algeria. Water 2022, 14, 1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Behnood, A.; van Tittelboom, K.; De Belie, N. Methods for measuring pH in concrete: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 105, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Campitelli, P.A.; Velasco, M.I.; Ceppi, S.B. Chemical and physicochemical characteristics of humic acids extracted from compost, soil and amended soil. Talanta 2006, 69, 1234–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Xie, Z.; Yang, X.; Sun, X.; Huang, L.; Li, S.; Hu, Z. Effects of biochar application and irrigation rate on the soil phosphorus leaching risk of fluvisol profiles in open vegetable fields. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 789, 147973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Shura, G.; Beshir, H.M.; Haile, A. Improving onion productivity through optimum and economical use of soil macronutrients in Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 9, 100321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ram, B.; Singh, A.P.; Singh, V.K.; Luthra, N.; Nath, A. Effect of different land uses on chemical properties of soil in a Mollisol. Pharma J. 2022, 11, 242–246. [Google Scholar]
  68. Moosavi-Nasab, M.; Khoshnoudi-Nia, S.; Azimifar, Z.; Kamyab, S. Evaluation of the total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N) content in fish fillets using hyperspectral imaging coupled with deep learning neural network and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 5094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Xin, Y. Changes in and evaluation of surface soil quality in Populus× xiaohei shelterbelts in midwestern Heilongjiang province, China. J. For. Res. 2021, 32, 1221–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cheng, H.; Zhu, X.; Sun, R.; Niu, Y.; Yu, Q.; Shen, Y.; Li, S. Effects of different mulching and fertilization on phosphorus transformation in upland farmland. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 253, 109717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Morel, C.; Plénet, D.; Mollier, A. Calibration of maize phosphorus status by plant-available soil P assessed by common and process-based approaches. Is it soil-specific or not? Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 122, 126174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ai-Ping, W.A.N.G.; Fa-Hu, L.I.; Sheng-Min, Y.A.N.G. Effect of polyacrylamide application on runoff, erosion, and soil nutrient loss under simulated rainfall. Pedosphere 2011, 21, 628–638. [Google Scholar]
  73. Garvin, H.M.; Dunn, R.; Sholts, S.B.; Litten, M.S.; Mohamed, M.; Kuttickat, N.; Skantz, N. Forensic Tools for Species Identification of Skeletal Remains: Metrics, Statistics, and Osteoid. Biology 2022, 11, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bertoldo, G.; Callegher, C.Z.; Altoè, G. Designing studies and evaluating research results: Type M and Type S Errors for pearson correlation coefficient. Meta-Psychol. 2022, 6. Available online: https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2020.2573 (accessed on 10 September 2022). [CrossRef]
  75. Arcenegui, V.; Mataix-Solera, J.; Guerrero, C.; Zornoza, R.; Mataix-Beneyto, J.; García-Orenes, F. Immediate effects of wildfires on water repellency and aggregate stability in Mediterranean calcareous soils. CATENA 2008, 74, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mataix-Solera, J.; Cerdà, A.; Arcenegui, V.; Jordán, A.; Zavala, L.M. Fire effects on soil aggregation: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2011, 109, 44–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Peduto, D.; Iervolino, L.; Foresta, V. Experimental Analysis of the Fire-Induced Effects on the Physical, Mechanical, and Hydraulic Properties of Sloping Pyroclastic Soils. Geosciences 2022, 12, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rodríguez, A.R.; Arbelo, C.D.; Guerra, J.A.; Mora, J.L.; Notario, J.S.; Armas, C.M. Organic carbon stocks and soil erodibility in Canary Islands Andosols. CATENA 2006, 66, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Garrido-Ruiz, C.; Sandoval, M.; Stolpe, N.; Sanchez-Hernandez, J.C. Fire impacts on soil and post fire emergency stabilization treatments in Mediterranean-climate regions. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2022, 82, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vogelmann, E.S.; Reichert, J.M.; Prevedello, J.; Consensa, C.O.B.; Oliveira, A.É.; Awe, G.O.; Mataix-Solera, J. Threshold water content beyond which hydrophobic soils become hydrophilic: The role of soil texture and organic matter content. Geoderma 2013, 209, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Schaumann, G.E.; Braun, B.; Kirchner, D.; Rotard, W.; Szewzyk, U.; Grohmann, E. Influence of biofilms on the water repellency of urban soil samples. Hydrol. Process. Int. J. 2007, 21, 2276–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Robichaud, P.R. Fire effects on infiltration rates after prescribed fire in Northern Rocky Mountain forests, USA. J. Hydrol. 2000, 231, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Stoof, C.R.; Ferreira, A.J.; Mol, W.; van den Berg, J.; de Kort, A.; Drooger, S.; Slingerland, E.c.; Mansholt, A.U.; Ritsema, C.J. Soil surface changes increase runoff and erosion risk after a low–moderate severity fire. Geoderma 2015, 239, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Malvar, M.C.; Silva, F.C.; Prats, S.A.; Vieira, D.C.; Coelho, C.O.; Keizer, J.J. Short-term effects of post-fire salvage logging on runoff and soil erosion. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 400, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Heydari, M.; Rostamy, A.; Najafi, F.; Dey, D.C. Effect of fire severity on physical and biochemical soil properties in Zagros oak (Quercus brantii Lindl.) forests in Iran. J. For. Res. 2017, 28, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Agbeshie, A.A.; Abugre, S.; Atta-Darkwa, T.; Awuah, R. A review of the effects of forest fire on soil properties. J. For. Res. 2022, 33, 1419–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Granged, A.J.; Zavala, L.M.; Jordán, A.; Bárcenas-Moreno, G. Post-fire evolution of soil properties and vegetation cover in a Mediterranean heathland after experimental burning: A 3-year study. Geoderma 2011, 164, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Montoya, S.; Marín, G.; Ortega, E. Impact of prescribed burning on soil properties in a Mediterranean area (Granada, SW Spain). Span. J. Soil Sci. 2014, 4, 88–98. [Google Scholar]
  89. Hamman, S.T.; Burke, I.C.; Knapp, E.E. Soil nutrients and microbial activity after early and late season prescribed burns in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 256, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chowdhury, S.; Manjón-Cabeza, J.; Ibáñez, M.; Mestre, C.; Broncano, M.J.; Mosquera-Losada, M.R.; Plaixats, J.; Sebastià, M.T. Responses in Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Fractionation after Prescribed Burning in the Montseny Biosphere Reserve (NE Iberian Peninsula). Sustainability 2022, 14, 4232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Norouzi, M.; Ramezanpour, H.; Rabiei, B.; Asadi, H. Effects of Flooding and Fire on Aggregate Stability: A Case Study in the Soils of Lakan Nursery in Guilan Province. Iran. J. Soil Res. 2013, 27, 415–426. [Google Scholar]
  92. Cerdà, A.; Doerr, S.H. Influence of vegetation recovery on soil hydrology and erodibility following fire: An 11-year investigation. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2005, 14, 423–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Fultz, L.M.; Moore-Kucera, J.; Dathe, J.; Davinic, M.; Perry, G.; Wester, D.; Schwilk, D.W.; Rideout-Hanzak, S. Forest wildfire and grassland prescribed fire effects on soil biogeochemical processes and microbial communities: Two case studies in the semi-arid Southwest. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 99, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Holden, S.R.; Gutierrez, A.; Treseder, K.K. Changes in soil fungal communities, extracellular enzyme activities, and litter decomposition across a fire chronosequence in Alaskan boreal forests. Ecosystems 2013, 16, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Tessler, N.; Wittenberg, L.; Malkinson, D. The development and the breakdown of hydrophobic layer after forest fires in mt. carmel, israel. In Proceedings of the International Meeting of Fire Effects on Soil Properties, Barcelona, Spain, 31 January–3 February 2007; Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=The+development+and+the+breakdown+of+hydrophobic+layer+after+forest+fires+in+mt.+carmel%2C+israel.+in+proceedings+of+the+in-ternational+meeting+of+fire+effects+on+soil+properties&btnG= (accessed on 10 September 2022).
  96. Robichaud, P.R.; Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Pierson, F.B.; Spaeth, K.E.; Ashmun, L.E.; Moffet, C.A. Infiltration and interrill erosion rates after a wildfire in western Montana, USA. CATENA 2016, 142, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Zheng, W.; Morris, E.K.; Lehmann, A.; Rillig, M.C. Interplay of soil water repellency, soil aggregation and organic carbon. A meta-analysis. Geoderma 2016, 283, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kara, O.; Bolat, I. Short-term effects of wildfire on microbial biomass and abundance in black pine plantation soils in Turkey. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 1151–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Heydari, M.; Faramarzi, M.; Pothier, D. Post-fire recovery of herbaceous species composition and diversity, and soil quality indicators one year after wildfire in a semi-arid oak woodland. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 94, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Luo, S.S.L.B.Z.; Hu, S.J.W.H.Q.; Wu, X.C.L.Z.P.; Zhou, Z.S.W.Y.F.; Zhong, Y.X. Effects of forest fires on soil organic carbon density in secondary forest of Pinus massoniana. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 2020, 44, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Vermeire, L.T.; Wester, D.B.; Mitchell, R.B.; Fuhlendorf, S.D. Fire and grazing effects on wind erosion, soil water content, and soil temperature. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 1559–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Gómez-Rey, M.X.; Couto-Vázquez, A.; García-Marco, S.; González-Prieto, S.J. Impact of fire and post-fire management techniques on soil chemical properties. Geoderma 2013, 195, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Badía, D.; Martí, C.; Aguirre, A.J.; Aznar, J.M.; González-Pérez, J.A.; De la Rosa, J.M.; León, L.; Ibarra, P.; Echeverría, T. Wildfire effects on nutrients and organic carbon of a Rendzic Phaeozem in NE Spain: Changes at cm-scale topsoil. CATENA 2014, 113, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Delijani, N.B.; Moshki, A.; Matinizadeh, M.; Ravanbakhsh, H.; Nouri, E. The effects of fire and seasonal variations on soil properties in Juniperus excelsa M. Bieb. stands in the Alborz Mountains, Iran. J. For. Res. 2022, 33, 1471–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Alcañiz, M.; Outeiro, L.; Francos, M.; Úbeda, X. Effects of prescribed fires on soil properties: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613, 944–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Asadian, G.; Khataar, M.; Siahmansour, R.; Ahmadian, M. Effect of fire on soil chemical and physical properties in the Solan rangelands, Hamadan Province, Iran. Iran Nat. 2021, 6, 67–73. [Google Scholar]
  107. Bárcenas-Moreno, G.; García-Orenes, F.; Mataix-Solera, J.; Mataix-Beneyto, J.; Bååth, E. Soil microbial recolonisation after a fire in a Mediterranean forest. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2011, 47, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dzwonko, Z.; Loster, S.; Gawroński, S. Impact of fire severity on soil properties and the development of tree and shrub species in a Scots pine moist forest site in southern Poland. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 342, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Vega, J.A.; Fontúrbel, T.; Merino, A.; Fernández, C.; Ferreiro, A.; Jiménez, E. Testing the ability of visual indicators of soil burn severity to reflect changes in soil chemical and microbial properties in pine forests and shrubland. Plant Soil 2013, 369, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Abdulraheem, K.A.; Aremu, A.S.; Adeniran, J.A.; Yusuf, M.N.O.; Odediran, E.T.; Ismail, A.; Sonibare, J.A. Effects of grassland fire on selected properties of soil in the savannah region of Nigeria. Lautech J. Civ. Environ. Stud. 2021, 6, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fire 05 00195 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of the Zarrinabad village in the Mazandaran Province (Iran).
Figure 1. Location of the Zarrinabad village in the Mazandaran Province (Iran).
Fire 05 00195 g001
Fire 05 00195 g002 550
Figure 2. A view of the sampling area and natural forests.
Figure 2. A view of the sampling area and natural forests.
Fire 05 00195 g002
Fire 05 00195 g003 550
Figure 3. View of laboratory (a) and field measurements (b).
Figure 3. View of laboratory (a) and field measurements (b).
Fire 05 00195 g003
Fire 05 00195 g004a 550Fire 05 00195 g004b 550
Figure 4. Comparison of the average soil physical properties under different plot types (a–l); BNF: Burned Natural Forest, UNF: Unburnt Natural Forest, BPF: Burned Plantation Forest, and UPF: Unburnt Plantation Forest.
Figure 4. Comparison of the average soil physical properties under different plot types (a–l); BNF: Burned Natural Forest, UNF: Unburnt Natural Forest, BPF: Burned Plantation Forest, and UPF: Unburnt Plantation Forest.
Fire 05 00195 g004aFire 05 00195 g004b
Fire 05 00195 g005a 550Fire 05 00195 g005b 550
Figure 5. Comparison of the average chemical properties under different plot types (a–g); BNF; Burned Natural Forest, UNF: Unburnt Natural Forest, BPF: Burned Plantation Forest, and UPF: Unburnt Plantation Forest.
Figure 5. Comparison of the average chemical properties under different plot types (a–g); BNF; Burned Natural Forest, UNF: Unburnt Natural Forest, BPF: Burned Plantation Forest, and UPF: Unburnt Plantation Forest.
Fire 05 00195 g005aFire 05 00195 g005b
Table
Table 1. Soil hydrophobicity level based on the WDPT (water droplet infiltration time test) method.
Table 1. Soil hydrophobicity level based on the WDPT (water droplet infiltration time test) method.
Hydrophobicity LevelTime of WDPT (s)
No hydrophobicity<5
Low hydrophobicity5–60
High hydrophobicity60–600
Severe hydrophobicity600–3600
Very severe hydrophobicity>3600
Table
Table 2. Two-way analysis of variance of soil physical properties in fire and non-fire treatments.
Table 2. Two-way analysis of variance of soil physical properties in fire and non-fire treatments.
FactorTreatmentFSig
Aggregate stability (%)Fire20.2290.000 **
Plot type65.1910.000 **
Fire × Plot type48.8640.000 **
HydrophobicityFire370.7780.000 **
Plot type29.9830.000 **
Fire × Plot type1.6110.21 ***
Bulk densityFire0.8330.37 ***
Plot type0.0840.77 ***
Fire × Plot type1.170.68 ***
True densityFire1.2170.267 ***
Plot type5.3450.057 ***
Fire × Plot type0.1050.74 ***
PorosityFire0.5620.458 ***
Plot type00.994 ***
Fire × Plot type0.1290.722 ***
Sand (%)Fire0.5830.45 ***
Plot type22.7620.000 **
Fire × Plot type7.7120.009 **
Clay (%)Fire0.0070.935 ***
Plot type10.1790.003 **
Fire × Plot type11.7830.002 **
Silt (%)Fire0.7490.393 ***
Plot type10.6520.002 **
Fire × Plot type0.4050.528 ***
Soil moistureFire3.360.07 ***
Plot type1.3740.2 ***
Fire × Plot type0.3630.5 ***
Initial infiltration (mm/min)Fire8.710.02 *
Plot type1.390.27 ***
Fire × Plot type31.270.0001 **
Final infiltration (mm/min)Fire496.90.000 **
Plot type502.4750.000 **
Fire × Plot type67.3030.000 **
Average infiltration (mm/min)Fire2.1710.18 ***
Plot type6.1250.035 *
Fire × Plot type36.3170.000 **
*, ** Significant difference at the level of one and five per cent (p ≤ 0.01), (p ≤ 0.05). *** No significant difference at the 5% level (p ≥ 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Correlation between OM and hydrophobicity level.
Table 3. Correlation between OM and hydrophobicity level.
Hydrophobic LevelOM
Hydrophobic levelPearson correlation1−0.194
Sig0.232 ***
Hydrophobic levelOrganic material
OMPearson correlation−0.1941
Sig0.232 ***
*** No significant difference at the 5% level (p ≥ 0.05).
Table
Table 4. Two-way analysis of variance of soil chemical properties in fire and non-fire treatments.
Table 4. Two-way analysis of variance of soil chemical properties in fire and non-fire treatments.
FactorTreatmentDFFSig
pHFire19.4470.004 **
Plot type10.870.357 ***
Fire × Plot type11.1130.294 ***
Electrical conductivityFire13.910.04 *
Plot type12.5090.122 ***
Fire × Plot type11.120.297 ***
Organic carbon (OC) (%)Fire11.1670.28 ***
Plot type13.8910.04 *
Fire × Plot type126.4190.000 **
Phosphorus (ppm)Fire11.060.3 ***
Plot type10.40.53 ***
Fire × Plot type111.1290.002 **
Potassium (ppm)Fire11.6250.2
Plot type18.7580.005 **
Fire × Plot type112.5950.001 **
STN (%)Fire15.940.02 *
Plot type16.6360.014 *
Fire × Plot type10.3970.53 ***
*, ** Significant difference at the level of 1 (p ≤ 0.01) and 5% (p ≤ 0.05). *** No significant difference at the 5% level (p ≥ 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fadaei, Z.; Kavian, A.; Solaimani, K.; Sarabsoreh, L.Z.; Kalehhouei, M.; Zuazo, V.H.D.; Rodrigo-Comino, J. The Response of Soil Physicochemical Properties in the Hyrcanian Forests of Iran to Forest Fire Events. Fire 2022, 5, 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5060195

AMA Style

Fadaei Z, Kavian A, Solaimani K, Sarabsoreh LZ, Kalehhouei M, Zuazo VHD, Rodrigo-Comino J. The Response of Soil Physicochemical Properties in the Hyrcanian Forests of Iran to Forest Fire Events. Fire. 2022; 5(6):195. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5060195

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fadaei, Zahra, Ataollah Kavian, Karim Solaimani, Leila Zandi Sarabsoreh, Mahin Kalehhouei, Víctor Hugo Durán Zuazo, and Jesus Rodrigo-Comino. 2022. "The Response of Soil Physicochemical Properties in the Hyrcanian Forests of Iran to Forest Fire Events" Fire 5, no. 6: 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5060195

APA Style

Fadaei, Z., Kavian, A., Solaimani, K., Sarabsoreh, L. Z., Kalehhouei, M., Zuazo, V. H. D., & Rodrigo-Comino, J. (2022). The Response of Soil Physicochemical Properties in the Hyrcanian Forests of Iran to Forest Fire Events. Fire, 5(6), 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire5060195

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop