Abstract
Although the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and the revised Morgan–Morgan–Finney (MMF) are well-known models, not much information is available as regards their suitability in predicting post-fire soil erosion in forest soils. The lack of information is even more pronounced as regards post-fire rehabilitation treatments. This study compared the soil erosion predicted by the RUSLE and the revised MMF model with the observed values of soil losses, for the first year following fire, in two burned areas in NW of Spain with different levels of fire severity. The applicability of both models to estimate soil losses after three rehabilitation treatments applied in a severely burned area was also tested. The MMF model presented reasonable accuracy in the predictions while the RUSLE clearly overestimated the observed erosion rates. When the R and C factors obtained by the RUSLE formulation were multiplied by 0·7 and 0.865, respectively, the efficiency of the equation improved. Both models showed their capability to be used as operational tools to help managers to determine action priorities in areas of high risk of degradation by erosion after fire. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.