Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper |

Open Access C has no ◦ ects we used ff 80 %) in the LP Haplic 1 Discussions > Solid Earth Solid ects on ff ects on the mineralogy we burned C transforms gypsum to bassanite, ff ◦ ect, as derived from variations in pF. ff , and M. T. Echeverría 2 (LP) in a convex slope and 0.01) in the splash erosion rates. The size of 1818 1817 < P , P. Peters 3 C in an oven and to assess the splash e ◦ erences ( Leptic Gypsisol ff , D. Badía 4 , 2 ects of a moderate heating, on physical and chemical prop- ff C and 205 ◦ erences in the content of organic matter and structural stability, both ff , M. Seeger 1 ect on soil mineralogy. However heating to 205 ff This discussion paper is/has beenPlease under refer review to for the the corresponding journal final Solid paper Earth in (SE). SE if available. Dept. of Geography and LandSoil Management, Physics University and of Land Zaragoza, Management, Spain Dept. Wageningen University, of the Agricultural Netherlands Science andPhysical Environment, Geography, University Trier University, of Germany Zaragoza, Spain and Cerdà, 2010), altering thecurrence fire as regimes well in terms as of fire frequency, intensity size, seasonality, and re- severity (Bento-Gonçalves et al., 2012; Keeley, show no significant di pores is reduced by heating treatment or fire e 1 Introduction Fire is a naturalportant factor socio-economic of changes landscape that occurred evolutionan in in increase the Mediterranean in last ecosystems. decades forest The have fires contributed im- to (Shakesby, 2011; Mataix-Solera and Cerdà, 2009; Jordán soil, while gypsum, dolomite, calcite minerals and (kaolinite and quartze illite) have are similar scarce proportionsincreases in in significantly both EC GY soils. in soil. both Heatingsoil. soil at Despite units 105 (LP di and GY) and decreases pH only in GY erties, mineralogical composition and susceptibility(15 cm to splash . Topsoil depth) samples Spain) were from two taken soil in types: (GY) the in a Remolinos concave mountainthe slope. slopes To soils assess (Ebro at the 105 Valley,a heating NE- e rainfall simulator under(0–5 laboratory cm soil conditions depth using of undisturbed Ahcontent topsoil horizon). than LP subsamples GY soil soil. has Gypsum lower SOM and and dolomite SAS are and the higher gypsum main minerals ( Fire is a naturalEbro factor Valley of has landscapeerodibility extreme evolution of aridity, in the which Mediterranean soils,is determines ecosystems. to especially Middle a analyze on low the gypseous plant e substrates. cover The and aim high of soil this research Abstract Solid Earth Discuss., 5, 1817–1844,www.solid-earth-discuss.net/5/1817/2013/ 2013 doi:10.5194/sed-5-1817-2013 © Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License. burned gypseous soils from theBasin Ebro J. León 1 2 3 4 Received: 17 September 2013 – Accepted: 17Correspondence October to: 2013 J. – León Published: ([email protected]) 30 OctoberPublished 2013 by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. Thermal shock and splash e 5 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | C ◦ Retama C; death of C; dehydra- ◦ ◦ Pinus halepensis Gypsophila struthium , ects after a moderate fire, n, 1985; Poesen and Near- ff ffi ects on soils, water and vegeta- ff C. In relation to reached temperatures in Lygeum spartum ◦ L.), covering the north slopes (Ruiz, 1990; L., 1820 1819 ) and small patches of forest ( C; death of certain seed at 70–90 ◦ C; and destructive distillation and combustion of ◦ cinalis ffi Quercus coccifera Ononis tridentatae Rosmarinus o and L., ects of heat on content (Mataix-Solera et al., 2002; ff ects the susceptibility of soils to be degraded (Neary et al., 1999; Shakesby, ff ects soil properties directly by heat impact and ash incorporation and reduc- ff hispanica C during a prescribed fire, and heat transfer values on the soil surface until 110 ◦ ected by wildfires that promoted the development of shrub communities ( ect agricultural areas important of the central sector of the Ebro valley. The study area sits on staggered relief (200–748 m), where gypseous soils predom- To assess changes on soil properties and erosion by splash, rainfall simulations The aim of this research is to analyze the heating e To Neary et al. (1999) some of the changes that occur in the soil in function of the In the Central Ebro valley (NE-Spain) the climate, lithology and relief let the develop- Fire a ff ff inate in the low slopeswith (Badía annual et al., precipitation 2013a). until The 450 climate mm, is with continental-mediterranean, maxima autumn and spring and extreme The gypseous soils wereEbro sampled in basin the (NE-Spain), Zueraa Mountains near in the the town centralsphaerocarpa sector of of Remolinos. the Thissubsp. area has beenMill. with regularly an understory of Gracia, 2005). 2 Materials and methods 2.1 Study area response (León et al., 2011) and erosivity (León etare al., 2012). a remarkably usefulis tool, irregular, especially having in intense semiaridet and areas, al., short-living where 2012). precipitation events (Cerdà, regime 1995; Seeger, 2007; León on physical, chemical soilsplash properties, erosion by mineralogical mean composition of rainfall and simulation. susceptibility to cause some edaphic changes. Someesis works on and gypseous classification soils2013a), are (Herrero focused plant and on its recovery Porta, gen- Gutiérrez, 2000; (Badía 1998; Artieda and Desir, et Martí,2000; 2001) al., 2000), Herrero or 2006; erosion et mineralogy Badía processes al., (Laya et 2009), (Gutiérrez et al., but and al., there 1998; are Herrero few and studies Porta, on their post-fire hydrological reached in burned semiarid woodlands may not be very high, they may be enough to tation cover, with small shrub patches on gypseous soils. Although the temperatures a temperature are: protein degradation and biologicaltion tissue of death certain at roots 40–70 edaphic or microorganisms death at at 48–54 50–121 about 85 % of the organica horizon semiarid at area, 180–300 Pérez-Cabello et800 al., (2012) obtained maximum values– between in 400– controlled burning-plots on semiarid shrubland –, because there are a low vege- ment of soils whose mainPorta, constituents 2000), is occupying gypsum, 7.2 % named of gypseoustion the of soils total gypseous (Herrero area soils and is (Aznar associated etVerheye to and al., regions Boyadgiev, 2013). 1997), of The and arid is global and necessary distribu- semi-arid analysis climate of (FAO, 1990; edaphic modifications that forming a surface crust withseverity low a permeability to air2011). and water The (Llovet e et al.,González-Pérez 2008). et Fire al., 2004),hydrophobic response on (DeBano, structural 2000;(Mallik stability Giovannini, et (Mataix-Solera 2012), al., and et 1984; onteristics al., Imeson infiltration represent 2011), et capacity factors al., on in 1992)Giovannini, soil 2012). have erodibility been and also soil degradation investigated. risk These (Shakesby, charac- 2011; tion (Bento-Gonçalves et al., 2012). tion or elimination of plant coverlead (Neary to et the al., structural 1999). Raindroping, degradation impact of 1993; on the burnt Ramos soil soil can surface et (Boi al., 2003). Aggregate breakdown liberates small soil particles 2009; Cerdà and Robichaud, 2009) causing severe e 5 5 20 25 15 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 1 × − rac- ff C), with ◦ 1–1.5 mm) and C (ten samples Leptic Gypsisol ◦ 50 (humic) with a se- 2 mm) of each soil d ) was used. Simula- < 1 − erent geomorphic posi- 80 %) in the LP topsoil. ff > to observe the soil changes 0 C. The mean annual evapo- ◦ ). Drop size ( erent texture: sandy to GY, 2 ff Haplic Gypsisol rac Plus Release 2000 EVA 6.0.0.1. C (all samples), 105 ff ◦ erent distribution of the main mineralogi- ff C and 36.5 ◦ C (3 h). SOM was calculated by gravimetry. ◦ 1822 1821 7.1 erences of weight, before and after the rainfall ff − ) were measured with Thies laser disdrometer (Fis- 1 − 15cm) were sampled in two di × mm 2 − 20cm C (five samples of both soils) for 30 × ◦ ), and mineralogy of fine fraction. m p C, controlled, and heated at 35 ◦ ractograms were evaluated by Di Ψ ff ect was measured by di C (24 h) and heated to 550 2899). Mineralogical composition of the fine fraction ( ff ◦ − x 3089 erent parameters were measured on the gypseous soils: pH, (EC), soil = The soil sample was sieved to 2 mm. The pH was measured in a 1 : 5 dilution with dis- 15 replicates of each soil block were taken in unaltered metallic cylinders (5cm ff y tometer. The di The splash e Porta, 2000; Lebron et al.,device 2009). (Schinner SAS et was al., calculated 1996). usingmethod To measure an of the Eijkelkamp matric wet Eijkelkamp sieving potential was (pF)extractor used we (Richards, to used 1947) -Box pF was 0,and used 1, sieving for 1.5 the measured and sample thetersizer 2. to pF 2 The 2000, mm. 3 volumetric correcting The and pressure soil the( plate 4.2, texture clay by was value measured breaking according with up type a to and Malvern after Taubner Mas- each et heatformed al. treatment in was (2009) the determined laboratory equation separately. of The Geology analysis at was Trier per- University, using a Siemens D500 di tilled water with a pH-meter, whilea the conductivimeter EC was after measured filtering in the aference, it 1 diluted : was sample. 10 taken For dilution about measuring (25 30dried g SOM at of by material 105 weight crushed dif- andGypsum sieved content to 2 was mm and calculated it by was thermo-gravimetry first (Vieillefon, 1979; Herrero and disdrometer (Fig. 2, right). 2.4 Soil analysis Di organic matter (SOM), gypsumpotential (pF content or (GC), soil aggregates stability (SAS), matric of the rainfall intensity onthe the kinetic simulation energy area (5.81 (1.16 Jm m ter et al., 2011). Theand simulation demineralized time water was (with 20tion pH min 7.1 plot with and an was an intensity divided of EC into rain of four of 36.7 µScm subplots 53 mmh that previously were calibrated with the laser University (Fig. 2, left). Small rainfall collectors were used for the detailed determination ulator with a Lechler nozzleKraaijenhofvan (Ref. 460.608.30) de at Leur 2 m Laboratory height for (Iserloh water et al., and 2011), sediment in dynamics the at Wageningen one month at 25 of each soil) and 205 after the heating. 2.3 Rainfall simulation To assess changessemiarid on areas, splash where precipitation erosion regimeevents the (Cerdà, is 1995; irregular, rainfall Seeger, having 2007; intense simulator León and et is short-living al., 2012). especially We used useful, a portable in rainfall sim- cal components, being the gypsum,component. dolomite, calcite Gypsum and and quartz around dolomiteClay 18–25 are minerals % (kaolinite each the and main illite) are minerals scarce ( in both soils. 6 cm) and covered the bottom with a metallic plate (Fig. 1). The samples were dried for Topsoil blocks (20cm tion in the head of the(skeletic) slope by with IUSS unburned (2007), gypseous with soils, classified ain as sequum the Ahy-R foot (which of we the willquum slope, call Ah-By-Cy with henceforth burned LP), (which gypseous and we soils, detail will in call Badía henceforth etand al. GY). loamy (2013a). The to The LP soils samples soil. are The had GY described a topsoil in di has more a di transpiration reaches 1406 mm (usingenhanced FAO56 by by strong Penman winds,Europe Monteith which (Herrero method) makes et and the al., it water 2009). deficit is to be2.2 one of the Soil highest sampling and in preparation temperatures that can vary between 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 1 − ect ect ff ff erences ected by C on the ff ff ◦ C), and it was ◦ C. To avoid loss ◦ 1.5 %) soil is lower C at the same depth ± erences between the ◦ ff C, 205 ◦ erence test at an alpha ff 0.05). < C, being GY more suscepti- ◦ p C, 105 ◦ erent depths, on the time of re- O). The intensity of the changes erent for both soil types. The LP ff 2 ers only a considerable decrease ff ff C. 2H erent the parameters with the same ◦ / ff C, doubling its value (from 2.1 dS m 1 ◦ ect (35 · ff 4 1824 1823 C, see Fig. 3). The SOM decreased significantly in ◦ C but not in GY topsoil which can be related to SOM ◦ erence between soils is that the water retention capacity ff C at 2.5 cm of depth on shrub and 90 ◦ 2.1 %). After heating, it su C in the upper soil centimeters (6.5; 2.5; 1 cm of soil depth). for 205 ◦ ± 1 − O) into bassanite (CaSO 2 C was employed because during a fire, only a small part of the heat ◦ 2H 0.05), using the ANOVA. It must be noted that the temperature e · 4 < p C to 205 ◦ C in both soils. This reduction could be a result of the oxidation, the exposure C to 4.2 dS m ◦ ◦ 0.05). The decrease in pH is highest at treatment 205 C (Vieillefon, 1979; Herrero and Porta, 2000; Lebron et al., 2009) to transform the er action (Giovannini et al., 1990). Similar pH decrease was obtained by Badía and ◦ < ff Mineralogical components of these gypseous soils can be modified by heating above In this study there was observed only a little, but significant decrease in soils pH The statistical significance of all the relationships between the dependent variables Heating decreases significantly pH and increases EC and soil loss by splash e p Other authors recorded 50 gypsum (CaSO in the soil dependssilience on of the the temperature temperature reached peakssoil and at (Gónzalez-Pérez on di et the al., stability 2004; ofthe Terefe the et study various al., was components 2008; concentrated of Granged on the ing et the 105 al., upper 2011). 6 cm Therefore is of the transmitted soil to samples. the Theet first range al. of few (2012) heat- centimeters have ofsoil recorded, surface soil maximum and (Badía temperatures 29–110 ranging et from al., 400–800 2013b). Pérez-Cabello of new surfaces, thebu dehydration of colloids andMartí the (2003), consequent after decrease heating a of gypseous the soil soil at 250 50 (splash, pH, EC, SOM, SAS andare gypsum showed content) in are each given rowlowercase in letter being Table 1. (i.e. not The the significantly di splash di forby both soil soil types). types The statistical (LPsignificantly significance and is ( shown GY) andshows temperature statistical e significance for the pH, EC and splash ( at 205 (33.8–55.5 %, respectively), and thethan gypsum in content the in LP GY soil (15.5 in (39.9 GY. Another remarkable di available to plants is greater in the GY than LP topsoil (Fig. 5). the heat (Table 1). SAS was lower on LP than on GY, independently of the treatment quality. The GY topsoil, more organic than the LP topsoil, is not significantly a The values of SOM, SASsoil and sample, GC placed are on significantly headsample, di a slope, more has developed lower soil SOM, on SAS foot and slope higher with higher GC( plant than cover GY (see soil Table 1). ble to a decrease of pHsignificantly than with LP temperature, (7.8–7.9, especially respectively; at seefor 205 Table 1). 35 The EC increased the LP at a temperature of 205 3 Results and discussion 3.1 Thermal shock and temperature – independentgypsum variable content –, – for splash, dependent pH, variablemeans EC, –, was SOM, for SAS made each and according set tolevel of of Tukey’s honestly 0.05 treatments. for significant The all separation di thefor of parameters normality analyzed. using Prior the to Kolmogorov–Smirnov ANOVA,were test, the variables and arcsine were SOM, tested SAS of andimprove the gypsum content the square normality root-transformed ofversion and 3 the the statistical data. software. others The were analyses ln-transformed were to performed using the RStudio of material by percolation, samples were closed at the2.5 bottom by a Data metal analysis plate. A two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for di simulation and two weeks after the experiment, after air drying at 35 5 5 25 15 20 10 20 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | · C 4 ◦ C at ◦ (LP), than cover. erent authors, C, the gypsum ff ◦ C, but it was in those ◦ Leptic Gypsisol C, only a small fraction (13– ◦ Ulex parviflorus) C in GY. The thermal increase O). Contrasting, the LP soil with ◦ 2 C can relate to experimental fires ◦ 2H C, by the combustion of the soil or- C and increases in bulk density and ◦ ◦ / 1 · ected by heat is the gypsum (CaSO C. ff 4 ◦ C. This decrease is accompanied by a signifi- 1826 1825 ◦ C, since fast heating does not allow enough time ◦ C may be related to solubilization and incorporation of ◦ C. ◦ C and again about 500 ◦ (GY) (Fig. 4 and Table 1). The gypsum content was higher in Ahy C. When the gypsum is heated up to 105 ◦ using the water through the crystal. For this reason in the mineralogical analysis ff O). The gypsum content in topsoil sample was higher in 2 Haplic Gypsisol Bassanite could not be found in the samples heated at 105 The water potential increases after heating at 105 The trend reduction in the soil organic matter and the soil aggregateIncreases stability in organic by matter after low intensity fires (Mataix-Solera et al., 2011), may The increase of EC at 205 bassanite did not show up until reaching 205 heated at 205 19 %) of gypsum istory removed; results moreover, in subsequent the partial formationet rehydration of al., in bassanite 2009). at the relative Some labora- crystal moisture loses data below 13–19 reported % saturation of (Lebron in itsmolecules. mass Consequently the (Artieda Lebron literature et et al. al., showtotal (2009) 2006), that, concluded water corresponding that disappears to at the the is 105 temperature two aroundfor at water 163 di which horizon of LP than inin the GY, as both the soils, gypsum content buttransforms did the it not gypsum vary was into with significantly heating bassanitea at (CaSO reduced 50 105 % at of 205 gypsumwhen in it its was heated fine at earth 205 fraction, it is also partly transformed into bassanite However, Mallik and FitzPatrick (1996)after concluded fire. that soil porosity increased directly 3.2 Mineralogical changes The main mineralogical component2H that is a in in annual fires that bulkgate density dispersion increased by and impact soil of porosity1966). rain, was Giovannini which reduced (2012) can due found clog to inature pores aggre- sandy (Bower, increased, soil 1966; being Moehring a most et decreasedecreases notably al., in of at porosity soil 170–220 porosity when related the to temper- the decrease of soil organic matter by soil heating. (Ralston and Hatchell, 1971; Boyer et al., 1994). Wahlenberg et al. (1939), observed of low intensity; thethe water bulk density retention increases values in descend the both outermost surface layer and due in to depth, the and reduction of micropores from 2.8 % to 2.2 %cant when reduction heated of to the 250 structurala stability redistribution from 70 of to the 50hillslopes. %. OM Despite Novara by et the water al. variety (2011) erosionsimilar of observed and values results of degradation and EC, at explanationssoils pH, the issued (Badía and OM by upper Martí, and di part 2000, SAS 2003;and of Cantón Hirt, have the et 2008; been al., Lebron 2001; found Badía et in et al., al., other 2009). 2008, works 2013a; Ries in gypseous 1998; Cerdà, 1998; Badíaof and the Martí, soil (Varela 2003), et and al.,increased changes 2002). at Giovannini in (2012) about the observed 150 mineralganic that soil composition matter, aggregate as stability transformationsMartí of iron (2003) oxides have cemented observed soil as aggregates. Badía organic and matter in gypseous soils drops significantly heating in LP soil wasorganic explained matter by decline some authors andsoil (Cerdà, the erodibility 1998; (Sanroque consequent Giovannini, et destruction 2012) al., as of 1987). aggregates and increased explain the increase inFierros soil et al., aggregate 1987; stability, Bento-Gonçalves et evenbility al., with after 2012). heating the The may reduction passage of be of soil related aggregate time to sta- a (Díaz- decrease of soil organic matter (DeBano et al., 5 cm soil depth in shrublands with Meditteranean gorse ( cations from the ashes (DeBano etamount al., 1977; of Badía soluble and Martí, inorganic 2003)(Sanroque ions or et to resulting the al., from increased 1987). the combustion of soil organic matter on a less dense shrub (Luchessi et al., 1994). Mataix-Solera (1999) recorded 22 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ) ± C 2 ◦ − n (1990) and ) than in LP 2 ffi − Haplic Gypsisol 0.2 kgm ± (LP) than in 2.4 %) had higher pF than GY ± C, changing to positively at 205 ◦ 1.0) to values of 3 and 4.2 pF, and from ered a significant soil loss after heating ± ff Haplic 1828 1827 erent from those within the groundmass (Aznar ff C; maybe it is explained because the SAS and ◦ ect was higher in GY (0.8 are explained by clogging pores and favoring entrain- ff ff ). The first one su 2.5) than in LP (39.9 2 − ± ). In GY the splash rates decrease when the SOM increases (0.6 ), whilst the latter one was no sensitive to heating (Table 2). (LP). Herrero et al. (2009) explained that upon drying, the salt migra- ects 2 2 ff ected by fire (Ellison, 1944; Moore and Singer, 1990). Lower infiltration − − ff 0.3 kgm ) (Fig. 7). ). In GY the splash rates decreased when SAS increased (0.6–1.4 kgm ± 2 2 − − 0.5 kgm 0.2 kgm 0.3) (Fig. 5). erence between pF 3.2 and pF 4.1, indicating the amount of water capillary ab- ff ± ± ± Di The splash rates increased when soil aggregate stability (SAS) increased in LP (0.5– There is not trend in the relationship between splash rate and soilSplash erosion organic increases mat- significantly by heating in GY but not in LP topsoil. The The pF curve was similar for both soils, decreasing as the soil dries. The pF was where the moisture conditions wereet di al., 2013). The progressiveble loss mineral of within weigh the could samplesome be mineral in as due the a by consequence wetting dissolution of phasenew of oven or pore heating. some When by space solu- water the increases dissolves gypsum, enhancedprogressive the some enlargement dehydration water of of intake pre-existing in porethrough volume the solution may following (Cantón enhance saturation et further phase al., 2001). and this splash rate is correlated(see negatively Fig. in 7). Moreover, GY gypseousstability to soils that have 105 low elicit organic a matter slowDesir content micropore and et flow aggregate al. (Martí et (1995)developed. The al., observed precipitation 2001). the as Lasanta microcrystalline same et gypsum al. results could (2000) in relate and to similar root soils channels, where microcrust was samples (GY) show athan lower porosity unburned (see samples (LP). Fig.because However, 5), the the and opposite the porosity occurs splash in withthe production GY the water is is heated content higher higher samples, to thana pF’s in major higher the energy (in LP. The by bothhad rainfall increase soils), a simulation because significantly the increases low there microporosity infiltrationexisting is (lost value, pores water because of decreases retention the macroporosity). water growth with Gypseous ofsplash flow gypsum soil (Poch rate crystals and are in Verplancke, correlated pre- 1997). positively The in SOM and LP. While the the soil aggregate stability with the Ries and Hirt (2008)the did short not transport find path any or the clear transport separation via in splash. inter-aggregatessorbable has because been of reduced after wettingbut by more rain and experiments subsequent heating should (see Table be 2), conducted to confirm these changes. The burned Intyre, 1958; Mataix-Solera et al., 2011). Nevertheless, Bresson and Boi ment of particles and nutrients, which may result in the formation of physical crusts (Mc by soil type. In dryHaplic soil Leptosol samples, crusting andtion cracking is are an detected, important particularly weatheringand in process the fissures, related which to can thelization. formation transmit Splash and additional widening production water of was for crack (GY), higher further in in salt the solution samplesSOM and heated were crystal- at lower in 105 aggregates LP. The a impact of raindropsrates on and bare higher soil surface aggregates runo destroys the (0.5 0.2 kgm SAS and the splash ratetively are with correlated the positively splash in rate LP. While in SAS GY is (see correlated Fig. nega- 6), the soil aggregate stability is significantly higher in GY (46.7 here the trend is(6.8 reversed, so that the LP soil0.7 kgm (9.2 (Fig. 6). ter. The splash rates increase when soil organic matter (SOM) decreases in LP The soil losssoils due (0.5 to splash(1.4 e 3.3 Splash e 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | , ff ect. ff 0.05) to < P , 2012. erential water loss method for ff ects on nutrients and organic ff ects on chemical and physical properties ff ects, Arid Land Res. Manag., 22, 286–295, ff 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.01.004 C caused a partial dehydration of gypsum to ◦ 1830 1829 , 2013a. ects on Soils and Restoration Strategies, Science ff , 2013. , in press, 2013b. ects of burning and brush treatments on nutrient and soil ff n, J.: Morphological characterization of development stages ffi This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Innovation C, the mineralogical changes appear and at this moment is when the splash ◦ 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.10.020 10.1016/j.catena.2013.08.002 10.3232/SJSS.2013.V3.N1.02 C only in GY topsoil. Heating at 205 n, J.: Stages and time-dependency of soil crusting in situ, Assessment of soil surface seal- ◦ ffi Rain events increase the water content at high pF’s (in bothAt soils), 205 therefore more scrubland, Hydrol. Process., 12, 1031–1042, 1998. Publishers, Enfield, NH, 2009. perimental approaches, Catena, 44, 111–132, 2001. Southeast Spain, Phys. Chem. Earth, 20, 271–279, 1995. on an experimental field, Geoderma, 47, 301–325, 1990. stone under semi-arid environment at Tabernas, SE Spain: laboratory and field-based ex- physical properties in young long-leaf pine stands, Forest Ecol. Manag., 70, 311–318, 1994. arid burned soils: soil2008. type and revegetation e genesis and classification in semiarid21, mountainous doi: environments, Geoderma, 193–194, 13– Rosa, J. M.,carbon Echeverría, of M. T.,doi: a and Rendzic Ibarra, P.: Wildfire in e recent NE avances, Geoderma, Spain: 191, 3–13, changes doi: ating cm-scale and crusting, topsoil, in:Gabriels, Proceedings Catena, D., of and the De Symposium Boodt, held M., Ghent, in Belgium, Ghent, 91–98, editedService, 1985. by: Southern Callebaut, Forest F., Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA, 1966. of two contrasting soils, Arid Land Res. Manag., 17, 23–41, 2003. Ebro Basin: soil properties anddoi: micromorphology relationships, Span. J. Soil Sci., 3, 28–44, burned soils in Central Ebro Valley, NE Spain, Arid Soil Res. Rehab., 14, 219–232, 2000. gypsum determination in soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 70, 1932–1935, 2006. higher in GY than in205 LP topsoil. Soil loss bybassanite, splash in increased both significantly gypseous ( soils (LP and GY). water is retained withmacroporosity). high energy due to an increaseincreases. of microporosity (ie a loss of Heating decreases significantly pHOn and the increases other hand, ECpositively SOM and correlated and with soil SAS the loss SAS, areto by is not their splash higher modified slope in e by the position moderate GY and than heating. plant in The cover. the Nonetheless SOM, LP soil topsoil loss according by splash is three times 4 Conclusions Cerdà, A. and Robichaud, P. R.: Fire E Cerdà, A.: Changes in overland flow and infiltration after a rangeland fire in a Mediterranean Cerdà, A.: regime under simulated rainfall in a three years abandoned field in Cantón, Y., Solé-Benet, A., Queralt, I., and Pini, R.: Weathering of a gypsum-calcareous - Bryan, K.: Processes and significance of rill development, Catena Supp., 8, 1–15, 1987. Bresson, L. M. and Boi Boyer, W. D. and Miller,. J. H.: E Bower, D. R.: Surface Soil Recovers Quickly After Burn, Research Note SO-46, USDA Forest Badía, D., Martí, C., Aznar, J. M., and León, J.: Influence of slope and parent rock on soil Bento-Gonçalves, A., Vieira, A., Úbeda, X., andBoi Martin, D.: Fire and soils: key concepts and Badía, D., Martí, C., Aguirre, J., Echeverría, M. T., and Ibarra, P.: Erodibility and hydrology of Badía, D., Martí, C., Aguirre, J., Aznar, J. M., León, J., González-Pérez, J. A., De la Badía, D. and Martí, C.: Plant ash and heat intensity e Badía, D. and Martí, C.: Seeding and mulching treatments as conservation measures of two Aznar, J. M., Poch, R. M., and Badía, D.: Soil catena along gypseous woodland in the middle Artieda, O., Herrero, J., and Drohan, P. J.: A refinement of the di References BES-2008-003056, the CETSUS projectphology (CGL2007-66644-C04-04/HIDCLI) and Global and Change the Research Group Geomor- this (D.G.A., work 2011). at The the Spanish Army Sanfor has Gregorio provided supported CENAF. We ideas, want material to and acknowledge instruments. the support by Catheline Sto Acknowledgements. 5 5 30 25 20 15 10 25 20 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | and sed- ect of fire ff ff ects of heating on ects and temporal ff ff ects of fire and water ff ectiveness of Wood chips ects on soil, Edizioni ETS, ff ff ects on soil surface character- ff , 2012. ect on physical and chemical properties rates following the 2004 Huelva wildfire, ects on Ecosystems, John Wiley & Sons, ff ff ff ect of land management after farmland aban- ff 1832 1831 under Mediterranean type forest, Catena, 19, 345–361, ff 10.1127/0372-8854/2012/S-00085 the passage ofGeoderma an Ediciones experimental Sala, M. fire, & in: Rubio, J. Soil L., Erosion Logroño, 177–183, as 1994. a Consequence of Forest Fires, istics: a laboratory approach, Catena, 74, 227–234, 2008. changes of water repellency in3978, a 2011. gypsiferous soils, Geophys. Res. Abstracts, 13, EGU2011- cover at reducingIssues, erosion 57, in 27–37, 2013. two contrasted burnt soils, Z. Geomorphol., Supplementary for irrigate alfalfa on soils with gypsum in Quintoexploiting (Spain), the Geoderma, gypsum-bassanite 87, phase 111–122, change, 1998. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J., 73, 403–411, 2009. water repellency increased fingered slowHydrol. and Process., runo 25, 1614–1629, 2011. Depression (Spain), Geoderma, 87, 1–29, 1998. 96, 47–61, 2000. iment yield in adonment, semi-arid Catena, environment: 38, the 265–278, e 2000. Int. J. Wildland Fire, 18, 116–126, 2009. Pisa, Italy, 86 pp., 2012. , in: FireThird in International Ecosystem Symposium Dynamicsins, on M. – J., Fire Mediterranean Freiburg University, Ecology, 95–102. and 1990. edited Northern by: Perspectives, Goldammer,on soil J. organic G. matter – and a review, Jenk- Environ. Int., 30, 855–870, 2004. repellency on infiltration and1992. runo León, F. J., Peters,parative measurements P., Schindewolf, with seven M., rainfallmorphol., Schmidt, s 57, simulators J., 11–26, on doi: Scholten, uniform bare T., fallow and land, Z. Seeger, Geo- suelos M.: afectados Com- por incendiosEstudio forestales, de in: los Actualización Suelos de Afectadosde por Métodos la Incendios y Ciència, Forestales, Cerdà, Técnicas edited para A., by: el and Càtedra Jordán, de A., Divulgació Universitat de València, 23–40, 2010. a small portable rainfall simulator55, and a Suppl. portable 3, wind 109–126, and 2011. rainfall simulator, Z. Geomorphol., 73, 1757–1763, 2009. burnt forest áreas in Galicia (NW Spain), Catena, 14, 189–199, 1987. of chaparral soils. I. Soil nitrogen, Soil Sci. Soc.Inc., Am. 1998. J., 43, 504–509, 1977. CPN 15, Zaragoza, 2001. áreas in the middle Ebro Basin, Phys. Chem. Earth, 20, 385–393, 1995. a review, J. Hydrol., 231, 195–206, 2000. Lucchesi, S., Ansaldi, M., and Giovannini, G.: Regeneration of Mediterranean maquis after Llovet, J., Josa, R., and Vallejo, V. R.: Thermal shock and rain e León, J., Echeverría, M. T., Badía, D., Martí, C., and Álvarez, C.: E Lebron, I., Herrero, J., and Robinson, D. A.: DeterminationLeón, of F. J., gypsum Mataix-Solera, content in J., dryland Echeverría, M. soils T., and Badía, D.: Wildfire e Herrero, J. and Porta, J.: The terminology and the concepts of gypsum-rich soils, Geoderma, Laya, D., Vanranst, E., and Herrero, J.: A modified parametric index to estimate yield potentials Gutiérrez, M. and Gutiérrez, F.: Geomorphology of the tertiary gypsum formations in the Ebro Lasanta, T., García-Ruiz, J. M., Pérez-Rontomé, C., and Sancho-Marcén, C.: Runo Granged, A. J. P., Jordán, A., Zavala, L. M., and Bárcenas, G.: Fire-induced changes in soil Gracia, C.: La flora de Zuera y sus pinares, Ed. Prames, Zaragoza, 2005. Keeley, J. E.: Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggests usage, Giovannini, G., Lucchesi, S., and Giachetti, M.: Beneficial and detrimental e González-Pérez, J. A., González-Vila, F. J., Almendros, G., and Knicker, H.: The e Iserloh, T., Ries, J. B., Cerdà, A., Echeverría, M. T., Fister,Jordán, W., A. and Geißler, Cerdà, C., A.: Kuhn, Avances N. metodológicos e J., innovación técnica en el estudio de los Giovannini, G.: Fire in agricultural and forestal ecosystems: the e Imeson, A. C., Verstraten, J. M., van Mulligen, E. J., and Sevink, J.: The e Fister, W., Iserloh, T., Ries, J. B., and Schmidt, R. G.: Comparison of rainfall characteristics of Herrero, J., Artieda, O., and Hudnall, W. H.: Gypsum, a tricky material, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., FAO: Management of gypsiferous soils, Soils Bull. 62, FAO, Rome, 1990. Ellison, W. D.: Studies of raindrop erosion, Agr. Eng., 25, 131–136, 1944. Díaz-Fierros, F., Benito, E., and Pérez, R.: Evaluation of the USLE: for prediction of erosion in Desir, G., Sirvent, J., Gutierrez, M., and Sancho, C.: Sediment yield from gypsiferous degraded DeBano, L. F., Neary, D. G., and Ffolliot, P.F.: Fire’s E Desir, G.: Erosion hídrica en terrenos yesíferos en el secrtor central de la Depresión del Ebro, DeBano, L. F., Dunn, P. H., and Conrad, C. E.: Fire’s e DeBano, L. F.: The role of fire and soil heating on water repellence in wildland enviroments: 5 5 30 25 20 30 15 20 25 10 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ects on soil aggrega- ff forest in Mediterranean ects on belowground sus- ff ects of heater burning, Eco- ff and erosion processes as quantified by ff Pinus halepensis ects on soil erosion processes, Soil Sci. Soc. ff 1834 1833 ects of raindrop impact and its relationship with aggre- raction analysis, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sc., 172, 161–171, ect of prescribed burning on physical properties of soil, ff ff ff ected by wildfire in a ff erent disaggregation forces, Catena, 53, 365–376, 2003. ff ected pine forests in south-eastern Spain, Geoderma, 118, 77–88, 2004. ff ects of heather burning: I. Water infiltration, moisture retention and porosity of sur- ff properties of six Mediterranean soils, A laboratory study, Geoderma,intense 143, burning, 273–280, Soil 2008. Sci., 156, 358–364, 1993. imentation method and the2009. laser-di propiedades del suelo, enstales, Rev. la D. Écol. composición Biol. florística Sol, y 22, 131–147, en 1987. laVerlag, erosión Berlin, 1996. hídrica de zonas fore- rainfall simulations, Catena, 71, 56–67, 2007. directions, Earth-Sci. Rev., 105, 71–100, 2011. organic matter on aDev., 22, mediterranean 530–536, hillslopes 2011. under maquia vegetation type, Land Degrad. 1990. tainability: a review and synthesis, Forest Ecol. Manag., 122, 51–71, 1999. Basin/Spain, Catena, 72, 282–296, 2008. Am. J., 54, 1117–1123, 1990. gate stability to di 261–266, 1958. peated prescribed burns, Res.Southern Note Forest SO-40, Experiment US Station, Department New Orleans, of LA, Agriculture, 4 Forest pp., Service, 1966. Sci., 48, 535–543, 1997. Catena Verlag, Cremlinge-Destedt, Germany, 1993. in: Proceedings, Prescribed Burning Symposium,Serv. 14–16 Southeastern April For. 1971, Exp. Stn., Charleston Asheville, SC. NC, US 68–85, For. 1971. tion: a review, Earth-Sci. Rev., 109, 44–60, 2011. Lasanta, T., Montorio, R., and Palacios,itored V.: Micro-scale using post-fire high surface cover spatial changesthe mon- resolution study photography of in post-fire soil a erosion semiarid processes, environment: J. a Arid Environ., useful 76, tool 88–96, in 2012. from fire-a matter and aggregatesenvironment, a Int. J. Wildland Fire, 11, 107–114, 2002. suelos, in: Efectos de loscuestión Incendios visto Forestales por sobre los científicos los españoles,Cerdà, Suelos FUEGORED, A., en Catedra and Divulgación España, de Mataix-Solera, El la J., estado Ciencia, Universidad de de la Valencia, España, 27–53, 2009. logical e face soil, J. Ecol., 72, 767–776, 1984. wet steving and lab rainfall simulation methods, Edafología, 8, 21–30,dios 2001. forestales, Contribución aCiencias, su Universidad de conservación Alicante, y 330 pp., regeneración. 1999. Ph.D. thesis, Facultad de prescribed burning, Soil Use Manage., 12, 143–149, 1996. Ulery, A. L., Graham, R. C., and Amrhein, C.: Wood-ash composition and soil pH following Terefe, T., Mariscal-Sancho, I., Peregrina, F., and Espejo, R.: Influence of heating on various Taubner, H., Roth, B., and Tippkotter, R.: Determination of soil texture: comparison of the sed- Shakesby, R. A.: Post-wildfire soil erosion in the Mediterranean: review and future research Schinner, F., Ohlinger, R., Kandeler, E., and Margesin,Seeger, R.: M.: Methods Uncertainty in of Soil factors Biology, Springer- determining runo Sanroque, P., Rubio, J. L., and Mansanet, J.: Efectos de los incendios forestales en las Novara, A., Gristina, L., Bodí, M. B., and Cerdà, A.: The impact of fire on redistribution of soil Ruiz, J.: Mapa forestal de España, Hoja 7–4, Zaragoza. E. 1:200.000, Ed. Icona-MAPA, Madrid, Neary, D. G., Klopatek, C. C., DeBano, L. F., and Ffolliot, P.: Fire e Ries, J. B. and Hirt, U.: Permanence of soil surface on abandoned farmland in the Central Ebro Moore, D. C. and Singer, M. J.: Crust formation e Ramos, M. C., Nacci, S., and Pla, I.: E Ralston, C. W. and Hatchell, G. E.: E Moehring, D. M., Grano, C. X., and Basset, J. R.: Properties of forested soils after re- Poesen, J. W. A. and Nearing, M. A.: Soil surface sealing and crusting, Catena Supplement 24, Mc Intyre, D. S.: Soil splash and the formation of surface crust by raindrop impact, Soil Sci., 85, Poch, R. M. and Verplancke, H.: Penetration resistance of gypsiferous horizons, Eur. J. Soil Mataix-Solera J., Cerdà A., Arcenegui V., Jordán A., Zavala L. M.: Fire e Pérez-Cabello, F., Cerdà, A., de la Riva, J., Echeverría, M. T., García-Martín, A., Ibarra, P., Mataix-Solera, J., Gómez, I., Navarro-Pedreño, J., Guerrero, C., and Moral, R.: Soil organic Mataix-Solera, J. and Doerr, S. H.: Hydrophobicity and aggregate stability in calcareous topsoils Mataix-Solera, J. and Cerdà, A.: Incendios forestales en España. Ecosistemas terrestres y Martí, C., Badía, D., and Buesa, M. A.:Mataix-Solera, Aggregate J.: stability Alteraciones in físicas, Altoaragón químicas soils: y comparison biológicas of en suelos afectados por incen- Mallik, A. U., Gimingham, C. H., and Rahman, A. A.: Ecological e Mallik, A. U. and Fitzpatrick, E. A.: Thin section studies of Calluna heathland soils subject to 5 5 30 25 20 30 15 25 10 20 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | b b b b a 0.05; T 0.05) 0.001 0.001 0.001 × < < 0.240 < < < S p ) P T a b a a 0.001 0.5060.8680.983 0.003 0.025 0.039 < erences ( ff b b b ) Temperature ( a S 0.001 0.001 0.001 < < < 1.69 ab 0.34 a 0.11 bc 0.2 a 0.384 0.014 0.01 a0.02 b 0.041 0.974 ± ± ± ± ± ± ), of the studied variables. T 1.44 b3.94 52.4 b 11.1 ects of fire and cattle grazing on longleaf 0.14 c 4.5 0.2 a 1.4 0.06 bc0.01 7.4 a 4.1 ± ± ff ± ± ± ± × S 11.56 ab1.52 60.7 ab 22.3 1836 1835 0.09 bc 4.8 0.2 a 0.6 0.01 a 2.1 0.00 b 7.8 ± ± ± ± ± ± erent letters show significant di ff ) and both ( T 1.61 ab4.60 55.5 c 15.5 0.01 a 3.9 0.5 a 0.8 0.18 b 2.1 0.04 b 7.8 ± ± ± ± ± ± 10.12 ab0.87 35.7 c 45.0 0.03 ab 2.3 0.2 a 0.5 0.00 a 4.2 0.00 c 7.8 ± ± ± ± ± ± ), temperature ( S 2.34 a2.13 38.9 c 46.2 0.11 ac 3.3 0.3 a 0.7 0.01 a 2.1 0.07 bc 7.9 ± ± ± ± ± ± ) 0.5 2 ) 2.1 − Mean value, standard deviation, mean comparison and their probability (ANOVA) ac- 1 − C) 25 105 205 25 105 205 Soil ( ◦ 0.1. For each soil property (line), di < field pedogenic characteristics, Soil Use Manag., 13, 97–103, 1997. ORSTOM, Pédologie, 17, 195–223, 1979. pine lands as studied at McNeill, Mississippi, US Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull., 683, 52 pp., 1939. aggregate stability and waterWildland Fire repellency Safety, of edited by: soils Viegas, in D. X., NW Millpress, Spain, Rotterdam, 264 in: pp., Forest 2002. Fire Research & SOM (%)SAS (%)Gypsum (%)Splash 3.4 (kgm 39.9 33.8 EC (mScm Soil unit CoverTemp ( pH Leptic Gypsisol (LP) 7.9 Haplic Gypsisol (GY) Probabilty p Table 1. b among means, by Post Hoc Tukey test. cording to the soils ( Vieillefon, J.: Contribution a l’amélioration deWahlenberg, W. l’étude G., Greene, analytique S. W., and des Reed, H. sols R.: E gypseux, Cahiers Verheye, W. H. and Boyadgiev, T. G.: Evaluating the land use potential of gypsiferous soils from Varela, M. E., de Blas, E., Benito, E., and López, I.: Changes induced by forest fires in the 5 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | a a

sub-

(C) 0.300.02 8.0 0.13 3.7 3.9 0.240.13 12.6 0.24 3.9 3.7 2.48 3.4 0.38 3.8 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± , before and after 2.65 9.2 2.930.06 19.6 0.10 15.0 17.4 0.74 6.8 0.560.56 15.0 0.71 11.9 10.0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.78 12.6 0.31 10.6 Haplic Gypsisol ± ± subsamples of the blocks; and and (GY) 1.37 21.8 0.80 27.2 (B) 14 ± ± 1838 1837 2.12 28.7 1.69 35.8 ± ± Haplic Leptosol block extraction, (A) 2.51 41.4 1.05 34.3 ± ± erence between pF 4.2 and pF 3. ff Di 0 kPa 1 kPa 5 kPa 10 kPa 100 kPa 1500 kPa Dif. a C) 0 1 1.5 2 3 4.2 Dif. ◦ 105205 43.9105 42.0205 40.7 40.5 50.4 44.6 35.2 35.2 44.7 40.0 27.4 27.8 38.7 35.1 18.8 21.2 30.0 28.3 15.9 13.7 A B C Mean value and standard deviation about the values of the pF (the base 10 logarithm

subsamples (C) and blocks; of the subsamples (B) extraction, block (A) preparation: Samples 1. Figure preparation. Samples preparation: GY before Field sampleGY after 46.7 35 41.2 41.0 36.4 28.6 27.6 TreatmentsRainfall Temp ( LP before FieldLP sample after 39.9 pF 35 37.9 32.8 29.3 23.4 27.6 Fig. 1. samples preparation. the rainfall simulation. Table 2. of the water potential in cm). (LP) Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper |

. . Haplic Gypsisol Haplic Gypsisol and (GY) and (GY) 15 1840 1839

Leptic Gypsisol 16 Leptic Gypsisol

Figure 3. BoxPlot of soil properties. (LP) Figure 2: Rainfall simulator (left) and2: Rainfall simulatorFigure subplots (right). diagram (left) -1,2,3,4-

BoxPlot of soil properties. (LP) Rainfall simulator (left) and subplots – 1,2,3,4 – diagram (right). Fig. 3. Fig. 2. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | and .

Leptic Leptic Gypsisol Haplic Gypsisol Haplic and (GY) and (GY) Leptic Gypsisol Leptic Gypsisol

18 . 1842 1841

17 Gypsisol ) values at collected samples from the field. (LP) from samples at collected ) values pF ) values at collected samples from the field. (LP) pF Haplic Gypsisol. and (GY) Figure 4. Mineralogy of the soil (2 mm mesh). (LP) Figure 4. Mineralogy of the soil (2 mm mesh).

Mineralogy of the soil (2 mm mesh). (LP) Matric potential ( Haplic Gypsisol.

Figure 5. Matric potential ( Gypsisol Fig. 5. (GY) Fig. 4. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper |

Haplic Gypsisol. Haplic Gypsisol. lash erosion in both soils erosion in both soils (means erosion in both soils (means and (GY) Haplic Gypsisol. and (GY) Haplic Gypsisol. and (GY)

20 19 Leptic Gypsisol 1844 1843 and (GY) Leptic Gypsisol il aggregate stability and sp il organic matter and splash and il organic matter Leptic Gypsisol Leptic Gypsisol and standard deviations). (LP) Relationship between soil aggregate stability and splash erosion in both soils (means Relationship between soil organic matter and splash erosion in both soils (means and (means and standard deviations). (LP) (means Figure 6. Relationship between so Figure 7. Relationship between so

Fig. 7. standard deviations). (LP) Fig. 6. and standard deviations). (LP)