Fire & Drought Effects on Soil Nutrients
Posted October 2019
In addition to direct loss of crops and livestock, drought and fire can affect soil properties and nutrient management.
Fire
The impact of fire is highly dependent on its intensity, duration and the proportion of plant material that is burned. Timber and shrubs will burn hotter and longer with greater impact on soil than range- or crop land fires. Fast moving grass fires have minimal impact on soil nutrients and soil health compared to slow moving, smoldering fires in moderate to heavy fuels (Table 1). Heat penetrates deeper in moist than dry soils; sandy soils are better insulated against heat transfer than loams.
|
Process
|
Approximate temperature range (°F)a
|
|---|---|
|
P, K, S, and micronutrient loss to air
|
> 1400 - 1600
|
|
Shrubland and aspen forest fire soil
surface tempb |
1100
|
|
½ the N in SOM is lost to air
|
930
|
|
Complete combustion of surface SOM
|
860
|
|
Aspen forest fire - soil 2” depthb
|
845
|
|
Increase in soil pH (liming effect)
|
840
|
|
Destroy water repellent layer
|
535-750
|
|
Grassland fire - soil surfaceb
|
675
|
|
Organic matter C and N loss to air
|
390-600
|
|
Develop water repellent layer
|
340
|
|
Stubble fire – soil surfacec
|
300
|
|
Urea/MAP N loss, MAP P solubility lossd
|
265
|
|
Water boiling point
|
212
|
|
Microbial mortality; Mycorrhizal loss
|
125-250
|
|
Seed mortality
|
160-195
|
|
Biological tissue, root death
|
105 - 160
|
|
Shrubland fire - soil 2” depthb
|
105
|
|
Grassland fire - soil 2” depthb
|
65
|
|
a Source: Knicker, 2007, unless otherwise noted; bArchibold et al., 1998; cScott et al., 2010; dIPNI
|
|
Immediate impact
Fires can reduce the pool of nutrients stored in plant residue and organic matter
and release a flush of plant available nutrients. Available nitrogen (N) is especially
increased after low intensity fires, even though a portion of N and sulfur (S) is
lost to the air. Phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and micronutrients are more stable
and not lost directly through combustion, but rather can be lost through blowing ash.
Although these losses are not trivial, they are similar to or smaller than removal
by harvest and average losses to wind erosion, and they are small compared to the
average pool of nutrients in the top 6 inches of soil (Table 2).
Fire kills bacteria and fungi at the soil surface but microbes rapidly recolonize
from deeper soil layers, except in severe fires that sterilize soil several inches
deep. Microbial activity can actually increase with the flush of nutrients available
after a fire. However, new input of plant material is important to sustain their populations.
|
Nutrient
|
Soil (lb/ac in top 6")
|
Grain harvesta (lb/25 bu)
|
Straw harvesta (lb/ton)
|
Straw burnedb (lb/ton)
|
Wind erosionc (lb/ac/yr)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nitrogen
|
3000
|
32.3 |
14.5 |
14.2
|
11
|
|
Phosphorus (P2O5)
|
2700
|
15.5
|
3.6
|
0.4
|
13
|
|
Potassium (K2O)
|
48000
|
9.5
|
25
|
4.3
|
172
|
|
Sulfur
|
-
|
2
|
3.7
|
2.5
|
-
|
|
a Fertilizer
Guidelines for Montana Crops; b Heard et al. 2006; c Merrill et al. 1999 |
|||||
Long-term impacts
Generally come from loss of plant residue and organic matter. Cropland fires rarely
burn hot enough to decrease soil organic matter. The bigger concern is loss of surface
plant residue, which protects against wind erosion and the physical sealing impact
of raindrops. Ash particles also contribute to reduced water infiltration as they
plug soil pores. All these factors increase the risk of water runoff and soil erosion.
Compounds in the burnt litter of forest and shrubland fires can create a water repellent
layer within the top 2 inches of soil. The depth and thickness of this layer can vary
greatly, and it can affect infiltration for several months to years. This layer should
not form on grassland or stubble fires.
Intense forest and shrubland fires can burn soil organic matter, reducing the soil
nutrient pool, aeration, water infiltration/retention, and the soil’s ability to hold
nutrients coming from ash or fertilizer. The available N created by burnt organic
material can be lost through leaching, as few active plant roots are left to take
up either the nitrate or soil water. This N loss can have long term impacts on the
productivity of forest and rangeland ecosystems, but can be minimized or counteracted
by fertilizing on croplands.
Post-fire management
Soil test for N, P and K to calculate fertilizer needs. When drought precedes fire,
it is likely that fields have N that wasn’t used prior to the fire, so less might
be needed the following spring. When soil sampling burnt fields, be sure to select
representative sites, avoid areas where there may have been a windrow, bale, or other
high accumulation of straw or residue.
Establishing ground cover is high priority where possible. Spreading manure can be
very beneficial post-fire but this is rarely available or reasonable at large scales.
Drought
Post-drought soil nitrate levels are likely higher than normal due to low plant growth
and nitrogen uptake. Soil nitrate is best determined by spring soil testing to help
adjust N fertilizer rates. If possible, planting a fall crop or cover crop can help
catch soil nitrate to minimize nitrate leaching loss.
Reduced crop production also means less nutrients are removed. Or, if the crop is
salvage harvested as forage rather than going to a grain harvest, different amounts
of nutrients are removed than generally accounted for in ‘normal’ harvests (Table
3). For example, haying a grain crop can remove more K than if grain had been harvested.
|
Wheat
|
Amount/acre
|
N (lb)
|
P2O5 (lb)
|
K2O (lb)
|
S (lb)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grain
|
40 bu |
50 |
25
|
15
|
3
|
|
Straw
|
1.8 ton
|
26
|
7
|
45
|
7
|
|
Hay
|
2 ton
|
50
|
20
|
76
|
4
|
Drought can alter P and K recycling which may slightly change their soil levels. If
there is fall moisture and the crop residue is composed of plants that died immature,
there can be a flush of P and K. However, if there is no fall moisture, then P and
K recycling into the soil pool is limited. Phosphorus and K distribution may be more
variable in the field than usual due to a more variable harvest.
References and for more information
Archibold et al., 1998. Canadian Field-Naturalist 112:234-240.
Heard et al., 2006. Better Crops 90(3):10-11
Knicker, 2007. Biogeochemistry 85:91-118.
Merrill et al., 1999. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:1768-1777
Neary et al., 1999. Forest Ecology and Management 122:51-71.
Scott et al., 2010. https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/9869747/Scott_20_Eberbach_20_Stubble_20_Retention.pdf
The following can be found at http://landresources.montana.edu/SoilFertility/publications.html
Developing Fertilizer Recommendations for Agriculture (MT200703AG)
Fertilizer Guidelines for Montana Crops (EB0161)
Soil Sampling and Laboratory Selection (Nut. Mgt. Module #1, 4449-1)
Soil Sampling Strategies (MT200803AG)

