Escribed fire and soil mulching using fern. Notes: U = unburned soils; B = B = burned and not treated soils; B M = burned and mulched soils; no soil loss was observed in pine and oak plots on 14 July 2020.Precipitation (mm)Soil loss (tons/ha)Precipitation (mm)Soil loss (tons/ha)Precipitation (mm)Soil loss (tons/ha)Land 2021, 10,16 ofSoil mulching with fern primarily lowered the erosion in pine and YC-001 Formula Chestnut forests compared to the fire-affected plots. The maximum soil losses were equal to 1.87 0.33 and 0.81 0.16 g/m2 (both surveyed within the third event), respectively. In these plots, the estimated soil losses have been even reduce in comparison with unburned soils, while the pre-fire erosion rates were only restored in oak forests for two events (Figure 4). three.two. Hydrological Modeling three.two.1. SCS-CN Model The SCS-CN model, operating with default input CNs, constantly gave poor predictions of surface runoff, as shown by the wonderful scattering with the observations/simulations around the line of best agreement (Figure 5). This low accuracy is confirmed by the poor values with the evaluation indexes (Table three). In extra detail, r2 was substantially lower than 0.five (with two exceptions, unburned soils in pine and chestnut forests, r2 of 0.73 and 0.79), and NSE was beneath 0.35 (except for unburned soils in pine forest, NSE = 0.36). PBIAS, which was positive in some soil situations and adverse in others, indicates a higher underprediction or Land 2021, ten, x FOR PEER Review 19 of 33 overestimation for a observation, respectively. In addition, the statistics calculated for the observations and predictions have been very distinct (imply error of up to 500).Unburned (default) Burned (default) Burned and mulched (default) 1:1 Unburned (calibrated) Burned (calibrated) Burned and mulched (default)1.0E1.0EPredicted runoff (mm)Predicted runoff (mm)1.0E1.0E1.0E-1.0E-1.0E-03 1.0E-1.0E-1.0E1.0E1.0E-03 1.0E-1.0E-1.0E1.0E(a)Observed runoff (mm)1.0E(b)Observed runoff (mm)Predicted runoff (mm)1.0E1.0E-1.0E-03 1.0E-1.0E-1.0E1.0E(c)Observed runoff (mm)Figure 5. Scatter plots of runoff volumes observed in forest web pages ((a), pine; (b), chestnut; (c), oak) topic to prescribed fire and soil mulching with fern vs. predicted applying the SCS-CN model. Values are reported on logarithmic scales. and soil mulching with fern vs. predicted employing the SCS-CN model. Values are reported on logarithmic scales.three.2.two. Horton Model The runoff prediction capability of your Horton model was inaccurate beneath all soil conditions and forest species. In more detail, regardless of the satisfactory coefficients of determination calculated inside the unburned soils in the three forest species (r2 0.65), the r2 was usually reduce than 0.14 inside the other soil conditions. The differences in between the mean observed and predicted runoff volumes have been more than 50 , with peaks of up to 677 . More-Figure 5. Scatter plots of runoff volumes observed in forest web pages ((a), pine; (b), chestnut; (c), oak) subject to prescribed fireLand 2021, 10,17 ofTable three. Statistics and indexes evaluating the runoff prediction capability in the SCS-CN model in forest plots subject to prescribed fire and soil mulching with fern. Run off Volume Mean (mm) Sacubitril/Valsartan medchemexpress Regular Deviation(mm) Minimum (mm) Pine Unburned 0.00 0.00 0.00 Burned 7.01 27.02 0.52 Burned and mulched 4.37 0.32 0.14 Chestnut Unburned 3.37 0.00 0.00 Burned three.85 0.00 0.00 Burned and mulched 1.25 0.00 0.00 Oak Unburned 0.00 0.00 0.00 Burned ten.00 13.74 two.81 Burned and mulched three.27 0.00 1.86 Maximum (mm) r2 NSE PBIASObserved Simul.
