Modeling Wildfire Effects on Ecosystem Services in two Disparate California Watersheds and Communities.

IF 3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Environmental Management Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-23 DOI:10.1007/s00267-025-02185-3
Ibrahim Busari, Matthew R Sloggy, Mani Rouhi Rad, Debabrata Sahoo, Stacy A Drury, Francisco J Escobedo
{"title":"Modeling Wildfire Effects on Ecosystem Services in two Disparate California Watersheds and Communities.","authors":"Ibrahim Busari, Matthew R Sloggy, Mani Rouhi Rad, Debabrata Sahoo, Stacy A Drury, Francisco J Escobedo","doi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02185-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecosystem services are important for human well-being and for sustaining environmental quality objectives. Growing concern over extreme wildfire events in various watersheds necessitates understanding their impacts on regulating ecosystems services. Past studies have documented how wildfires regulate ecosystem services, but the distributional impacts of such ecosystem services across various human settlements (i.e. communities) remains understudied, despite renewed focus on how they are increasingly at risk from and being impacted by wildfires. We used the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (InVEST) model to examine how two wildfires that occurred in California, USA in 2017 impacted water provisioning, soil loss and sediment delivery, carbon sequestration services, and nutrient delivery in two watersheds and their respective communities. Regression analyses were used to determine the differences in the distribution of ecosystem services before and after the fires, and whether these wildfires exacerbated the differences in impacts to ecosystem services across communities in the watershed. We find that a year following the fires, the amount of biomass in forestland, woodland, and chaparral declined in both studied watersheds, while the amount of grassland increased. The model revealed that the changes in vegetation resulted in losing about 200,000 tons of carbon from the Mark West subwatershed and about 160,000 tons of carbon from the southern California watersheds. The expected mean annual water yield for both watersheds increased by 5% and 42%, respectively post-fire. Expected post-fire phosphorus and nitrogen export also increased. Finally, we found evidence of human community-level differences in the distribution of pre-fire ecosystem services but no evidence that post-fire conditions either exacerbated or alleviated these impacts.</p>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":" ","pages":"1680-1700"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12228666/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02185-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ecosystem services are important for human well-being and for sustaining environmental quality objectives. Growing concern over extreme wildfire events in various watersheds necessitates understanding their impacts on regulating ecosystems services. Past studies have documented how wildfires regulate ecosystem services, but the distributional impacts of such ecosystem services across various human settlements (i.e. communities) remains understudied, despite renewed focus on how they are increasingly at risk from and being impacted by wildfires. We used the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (InVEST) model to examine how two wildfires that occurred in California, USA in 2017 impacted water provisioning, soil loss and sediment delivery, carbon sequestration services, and nutrient delivery in two watersheds and their respective communities. Regression analyses were used to determine the differences in the distribution of ecosystem services before and after the fires, and whether these wildfires exacerbated the differences in impacts to ecosystem services across communities in the watershed. We find that a year following the fires, the amount of biomass in forestland, woodland, and chaparral declined in both studied watersheds, while the amount of grassland increased. The model revealed that the changes in vegetation resulted in losing about 200,000 tons of carbon from the Mark West subwatershed and about 160,000 tons of carbon from the southern California watersheds. The expected mean annual water yield for both watersheds increased by 5% and 42%, respectively post-fire. Expected post-fire phosphorus and nitrogen export also increased. Finally, we found evidence of human community-level differences in the distribution of pre-fire ecosystem services but no evidence that post-fire conditions either exacerbated or alleviated these impacts.

模拟野火对加州两个不同流域和社区生态系统服务的影响。
生态系统服务对人类福祉和维持环境质量目标至关重要。对各种流域极端野火事件的日益关注,需要了解它们对调节生态系统服务的影响。过去的研究记录了野火如何调节生态系统服务,但这种生态系统服务在各种人类住区(即社区)中的分布影响仍未得到充分研究,尽管人们重新关注它们如何越来越多地面临野火的风险并受到野火的影响。我们使用生态系统服务和权衡综合评估(InVEST)模型来研究2017年发生在美国加利福尼亚州的两场野火如何影响两个流域及其各自社区的供水、土壤流失和沉积物输送、碳封存服务和养分输送。利用回归分析确定了火灾前后生态系统服务分布的差异,以及这些野火是否加剧了流域各社区生态系统服务影响的差异。研究发现,火灾发生一年后,两个流域的林地、林地和灌木林的生物量都有所下降,而草地的生物量则有所增加。该模型显示,植被的变化导致马克韦斯特流域损失了约20万吨碳,南加州流域损失了约16万吨碳。火灾发生后,这两个流域的年平均出水量分别增加了5%和42%。预计火灾后磷和氮的出口也有所增加。最后,我们发现了人类群落在火灾前生态系统服务分布上存在差异的证据,但没有证据表明火灾后的条件会加剧或减轻这些影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Management
Environmental Management 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more. As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信