Next Article in Journal
UAV Cruise Strategies Based on Initial Attack
Previous Article in Journal
Fire Resilience of Load-Bearing Wall Made of Hollow Timber Elements
Previous Article in Special Issue
Weighing Policy Effectiveness Through Recent Forest Fire Status
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fire
Volume 7
Issue 12
10.3390/fire7120434
fire-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on Wildfire and Soil Water: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1990 to 2023

by
Fenglin Zuo
1,
Qichao Yao
1,
Lamei Shi
1,
Zhou Wang
1,
Maowei Bai
1,
Keyan Fang
2,
Futao Guo
3,
Lihua Yuan
4 and
Weikang Zhang
1,*
1
National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China, Beijing 100085, China
2
Key Laboratory of Humid Subtropical Eco-Geographical Process (Ministry of Education), Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350007, China
3
College of Forestry, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
4
School of Remote Sensing and Information Engineering, North China Institute of Aerospace Engineering, Langfang 065000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fire 2024, 7(12), 434; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7120434
Submission received: 12 October 2024 / Revised: 21 November 2024 / Accepted: 24 November 2024 / Published: 26 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Climate Change on Fire Danger)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the context of climate change, wildfires occur more frequently and significantly impact the vegetation–soil–water continuum. Soil water is a critical factor for understanding wildfire occurrence and predicting wildfire hazards. However, there is a lack of specific bibliometric analysis of the research on the mechanisms by which soil water influences wildfire occurrence. Therefore, this study conducted a bibliometric analysis of wildfire and soil water, aiming to understand their relationship, research characteristics, and future development trends. We used the Bibliometrix software package in R 4.4.0, which provides different methods for analyzing bibliometric data. A total of 1585 publications were analyzed from 1990 to 2023. The results of the study showed that the number of publications showed an overall growth trend during the period, with an average annual increase rate of 4.4%. The average annual citations per paper exhibited a pattern of rapid increase, followed by slow growth, and then rapid decrease. Ten highly productive authors in the field contributed 12.2% of the total publications during this period. Over the past 30 years, the University of Aveiro has consistently ranked first in terms of paper quantity. Most of the top ten productive institutions are in the United States, Australia, and several European countries. Fifty-eight countries engage in research related to wildfires and soil water, with close collaboration observed between the United States, Canada, and Spain. The four most frequently used keywords are “wildfire”, “fire”, “water repellency”, and “runoff” (with a total frequency of 1385). Water properties relevant to soil characteristics in the word cloud primarily include hydrophobicity, runoff, erosion, and infiltration. Erosion, wildfires, and runoff are crucial in the field but have yet to receive substantial development. The correlation of post-wildfire soil water properties with infiltration, runoff, and erosion processes is most likely to be addressed in future research. The findings will help researchers assess the post-wildfire disaster chain and its impact on the ecological environment, with clear trends, gaps, and research directions in the areas.

1. Introduction

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that burns vegetation materials, typically occurring during periods of severe drought and/or heat waves [1]. In the context of climate change, the occurrence of wildfires is increasingly frequent and significantly impacts the vegetation–soil–water continuum [2,3,4,5,6]. Moreover, wildfires are significant sources of carbon dioxide and air pollutants, indirectly influencing carbon cycling and climate [7,8,9,10]. Compared to controlled and planned fires, wildfires threaten livelihoods and food security, causing catastrophic impacts on local ecosystems and communities [11,12]. Soil water is critical for understanding wildfire occurrence and predicting wildfire hazards [13,14,15,16]. However, the mechanisms underlying the relationship between wildfires and soil water are not yet fully understood, necessitating further research.
Soil water is the water contained in the unsaturated soil zone, serving as the main carrier of the material flow, energy cycle, and information exchange in various ecosystems [17,18,19]. Before the occurrence of wildfires, there are typically abnormal signs in soil water [20,21]. Soil water not only affects the growth conditions of vegetation and the accumulation of wildfire fuels but also determines the moisture content of vegetation, thereby influencing its flammability [15,21,22]. Soil water-holding capacity is a key parameter influencing post-fire vegetation regeneration [4]. Wildfires can lead to changes in soil structure, resulting in reduced soil conductivity, soil water, water-holding capacity, and bulk density [23]. The soil infiltration capacity may decrease below pre-fire levels, thereby establishing critical rainfall intensity thresholds that control post-fire runoff [2,24,25]. Wildfires exhibit significant variation in soil hydrophobicity across different fire intensities and ecosystems [5,26]. Additionally, forest fires exhibit significant spatiotemporal heterogeneity in their impacts on soil hydraulics and other physical properties [27]. The hydrological response to moderate-scale precipitation events following wildfires can range from negligible impacts to catastrophic global flooding and debris flows [28,29].
Integrating in situ data, remote sensing, and simulated soil water information into wildfire danger rating systems can enhance dynamic fuel load and moisture content estimations, thereby improving wildfire risk assessment and forecasting of occurrence and scale [30]. Several prominent wildfire danger rating systems in various countries currently use approximate values of moisture in mineral and/or organic soil layers to quantify wildfire risk [31]. Soil water is directly correlated with the occurrence and size of wildfires (e.g., [14,32,33]). Some studies have also identified the influence of vegetation types on the relationship between soil water and wildfires (e.g., [30,34,35]). Soil water is recognized as a crucial factor influencing wildfire occurrence and is used for assessing wildfire risk. However, research on the impact mechanisms of soil water characteristics before and after fires remains limited and warrants further investigation.
Bibliometric analysis can be used to evaluate scientific achievements and research evaluation, mainly using techniques such as computer engineering, database management, and statistics [36,37,38]. Developed by Alan Pritchard in 1969, this method can examine the progress of individual topics, aggregate the evaluation of journals, institutions, countries, authors, etc., and help researchers determine the status of research and collate and identify new research trends [39,40,41]. Bibliometric research is referred to as the “science of science” and is quantitative in nature, but these methods are also used to make claims about qualitative features [42]. Current bibliometric studies related to wildfires have identified key researchers in the field, the complexity of its evolution, emerging research hotspots, trends, and opportunities for further investigation. Specific research topics primarily focus on characteristics of fire management studies, wildfires and protected areas, and wildfires in Australia [43,44,45]. Methodologically, the research has focused on forest fires and remote sensing studies, visualization of wildfire modeling and prediction methods, and exploring the close relationship between detection method technological advancements and remote sensing data acquisition [46,47]. It has also examined current trends and research gaps in wildfire prediction, spatiotemporal relationships in wildfires within protected areas, research characteristics, and future development trends. However, there is a lack of specific bibliometric analysis on the technological research related to the mechanisms by which soil water influences wildfire occurrence. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the trends and key areas of science and technology research from 1990 to 2023 using bibliometrics. The findings will help researchers assess trends, gaps, and research directions related to wildfires and soil water. Specifically, we aim to (1) provide an accurate overview of scientific publications over time, (2) understand global research publication patterns in science and technology, and (3) develop future research strategies in this field.

2. Data and Methods

Our research focuses on wildfires and soil water. There were two main stages of data collection and preparation. The first stage was data retrieval. We used the Science Citation Index Extended (SCI-E) database (“MORE SETTINGS” setting) in the Web of Science Core Collection on March 17, 2024. SCI-E is one of the main bibliographic databases produced by Clarivate Analytics, providing comprehensive coverage of the most important and influential research worldwide [36]. The literature search period was 1990–2023, the language was English, the keywords “wildfire” and “soil water” were both selected, and 1585 publications were finally produced after the keyword search. The second stage was the downloading and transformation of the data. The data were converted into BibTex (.bib) files for the Bibliometrix software package in R 4.4.0 language for bibliometrix analysis [48]. An open-source statistical programming environment based on R language, with many efficient, high-quality statistical algorithms and integrated data visualization tools, can decompose and parse raw literature data in one step [49]. Bibliometrix can evaluate three key groups: (1) authors, which includes author, affiliation, and country analysis; (2) publication sources, able to assess the impact of sources and verify productivity; (3) literature, including citation data and references. The main data information is shown in Table 1.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Temporal Trends of Publications and Citations

The annual scientific production of publications can reflect the progress of relevant scientific research and its importance. The number of publications generally showed an increasing trend over the period 1990–2023 (Figure 1a). A higher volume of citations and a diversity of citation formats can facilitate the dissemination of research findings in this field, thereby garnering broader attention to the issue. The small number of research papers on wildfires and soil water suggests that research on both has expanded somewhat over the past three decades, but is still not widespread enough. The number of studies increased from 2 in 1990 to 148 in 2023, with an average annual increase rate of 4.4%.
Overall, there has been a significant increase since 2010, with nearly 83% of publications published between 2010 and 2023. At the same time, this may have something to do with the extreme weather that began sweeping the world in 2009. On the other hand, the study of wildfires and soil water, which has historically received less attention, has received increasing attention, but there are still many unresolved scientific questions.
Although the number of published papers has been increasing for nearly 30 years, the average number of citations per paper per year shows a trend of rapid increase, slow increase, and rapid decrease (Figure 1b). The period from 1991 to 2000 was a period of rapid growth, and the value was maximum in 2000. It was in a slow growth stage from 2000 to 2013 and a rapid decline stage from 2013 to 2023. One possible reason is that new publications take longer to reach their peak, and newer ones will gradually replace older publications. Another reason could be that researchers are more inclined to cite papers in high-impact journals [1]. Moreover, the annual scientific production of publications increased significantly from 2015, and the number of relevant citable documents increased significantly as well, which in turn led to a significant decrease in the mean total citation per paper per year. For example, the number of publications in 1998 was the same as in 1996, but the number of citations was higher than in 1996 due to the larger number of publications in high-impact-factor journals (Figure 1). Therefore, in the future, wildfire- and soil-water-related researchers should try to publish papers in high-impact-factor journals to improve citation rates.

3.2. Related Journals

Currently, wildfire and soil water research has been published in 364 journals. This indicates that relevant publications are scattered across various journals. As shown in Table 2, Science of the Total Environment, Catena, International Journal of Wildland Fire, Hydrological Processes, and Forest Ecology and Management were the top five most published journals for related research.
Citation statistics can be used to assess the relative influence of academic journals. The Journal of Hydrology, Hydrological Processes, International Journal of Wildland Fire, Catena, and Forest Ecology and Management were the top five most cited academic journals (Table 2). Journals that publish more scientific research papers, such as Catena, usually have higher scientific citations. Journals with high impact factors tend to have higher citation rates for scientific research, even though they have few publications in the scientific field, for example, Water Resources Research and the Journal of Hydrology.
The top five high-yield journals in wildfire- and soil-water-related studies all showed an increasing trend with time over the course of more than 30 years, but the years of sharp increase in different journals were different (Figure S1). Among them, Science of the Total Environment increased by 88 articles at most, and Forest Ecology and Management increased by 58 articles at least. In recent years, these journals have supported open access, further contributing to the increase in the number of related research publications.

3.3. Productive Authors

Through the authors’ analysis, it was shown that 10 high-yield authors engaged in wildfire- and soil-water-related research published 193 papers, accounting for 12.2% of the total publications. Figure S2 shows the top 10 most relevant authors and the top 10 most cited authors. When counting the number of publications and citations, we do not distinguish based on the order in the author list. Figure 2 shows the author collaboration network. The circle size indicates the number of articles published by the author, and the connection between the authors indicates the strength of the collaboration [50]. By analyzing the collaborative networks of highly productive authors, it is possible to quickly grasp the leading research teams in the field. The results found that no Chinese authors were among the top 10 most relevant and cited authors, and there was little collaboration between domestic and international scientists. This indicates that China’s research on wildfires and soil water needs to be further strengthened. Only 5 of the top 10 relevant authors were also among the top 10 cited. One reason these authors are not the most cited authors may be that they are divided into several teams. Extensive cooperation is an effective way to promote scientific development.

3.4. Productive Affiliations and Countries

Relevant affiliations can reflect the academic attention of science and technology research, which is conducive to identifying active and influential affiliations. Wildfires occurring in the country where an institution is based tend to attract more focus. Additionally, research areas emphasized by well-regarded institutions serve as a leading guide for peers, further increasing attention on specific issues. Consequently, the influence of an institution and its country of location plays a significant role in guiding research directions. With 1899 affiliations globally involved in wildfire and soil water research, the top 10 affiliations contributed 801 papers, or more than 50% of the total number of publications retrieved. For nearly 30 years, the University of Aveiro ranked first in the number of papers (Table 3), followed by the US Forest Service and Colorado State University in second and third place, respectively. It is worth noting that most of the top 10 production facilities are located in the United States, Australia, and some European countries. This is mainly because these countries started wildfire research earlier and have a deep research foundation [50]. Based on the existing research on wildfire prevention, these countries are increasingly focusing on post-fire recovery. However, soil water characteristics are not only the main factors affecting the occurrence of wildfires, but also important content to be paid attention to in post-fire recovery [15,21,22]. As a result, these countries ranked among the highest in the number of studies on wildfire and soil water properties.
The country of production can reflect the degree of emphasis on scientific and technological research. The number of published papers to a certain extent represents the level of development of the country in the field of research. We created a world heat map showing publications from all countries (Figure 3). This visualizes the areas with the most productivity and research hotspots. The results showed that 58 countries around the world are engaged in research related to wildfires and soil water (Figure 3). The top 10 countries published 1342 papers (84.7%), and the 10 countries with the highest total citations published 905 papers (57.10) (Figure S3). The United States, Spain, Australia, Portugal, Canada, China, Italy, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Germany were the 10 most productive countries during the study period. However, the United States, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, China, Italy, the Netherlands, and South Africa are the top 10 most cited countries (Figure S3). The United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom are the top three countries regarding the number of articles co-authored by authors from other countries. A country’s focus on the study of natural disasters and calamities is closely related to their frequency and intensity, as well as the economic losses they incur. Between 2001 and 2020, the daily peak growth rate of wildfires in the western United States more than doubled, with over three-quarters of the structures destroyed by wildfires being burned in these rapid-fire events [51]. The loss of timber due to wildfires has been increasing throughout the 21st century, primarily occurring in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, as well as in northeastern Russia, southeastern Australia, and Brazil [52].
The United States has close cooperation with Canada and Spain. However, these three countries have a low degree of cooperation with European countries, which needs to be strengthened in future studies (Figure 4). This analysis allowed us to identify research differences in the number of scientific papers and citations in many countries, and to highlight the need to develop wildfire- and soil-water-related research, fostering collaboration among researchers around the world.

3.5. Temporal Evolution of Popular Keywords

3.5.1. Most Popular Keywords

Keywords indicate research trends, cutting-edge information, and topics of most interest to researchers in the field [45]. The word cloud showed the 50 most used keywords over the past 33 years since 1990 (Figure 5). The top four most-used keywords were “wildfire”, “fire”, “water repellency”, and “runoff” (the frequencies were 490, 446, 231, and 218, respectively; the total frequency was 1385). The water properties related to soil water characteristics in the word cloud mainly include water repellency, runoff, erosion, and infiltration. As can be seen from the figure, our search term “soil water” does not appear in the word cloud. This is mainly because soil water is the core factor affecting hydrological processes and often acts as an element of water balance to trigger changes in other ecological and hydrological characteristics and processes [17].
Soil water repellency (SWR) is the phenomenon of soil being unable or very difficult to be moistened by water, and it exists in many vegetation types and climatic zones, especially in burned land [53,54]. A large number of studies have shown that fire disturbance enhances soil water repellency, decreases soil infiltration rate, and increases surface runoff and soil erosion [55,56]. Therefore, the research on the formation mechanism of soil water repellency under the disturbance of wildfire has been one of the research hotspots in the field of wildfire ecology.
After a wildfire, the rate of soil infiltration is reduced, and plants are burned, so once the rain falls after the fire, the burned land is more likely to form surface runoff than the unburned land [57,58]. When soil water is lower than the critical threshold, soil repulsion has a greater influence on infiltration and runoff in the dry season [55]. For example, soil repulsion in Australian eucalyptus forests increased significantly after wildfires, resulting in a 10% increase in surface runoff compared to other woodlands [59]. In addition, reduced soil infiltration can also hinder plant germination and growth (i.e., affect post-fire vegetation restoration), thus affecting the duration of runoff and erosion after fire disturbance.
In general, the most significant effect of soil repellency on erosion is attributed to surface runoff. With the increase in surface runoff, the speed, scouring, and transportation capacity also increase. Influenced by regional topography, the runoff becomes many thin streams, resulting in rill erosion [60]. Soil erosion rate was highly correlated with soil repulsion after wildfire disturbance. Laboratory results show that water-repellent soils produced fewer and slower mobile droplets than wet soils, but water droplets on water-repellent soils contained more sediment [61].
Studies before and after the Colorado Jack Pine Forest fire showed that the first rainstorm after a high-intensity fire caused extensive rind erosion, washing away about 80% of the sediment of the surface land [62]. This is because wildfires consume forest vegetation and litter, reducing surface soil water and thus reducing soil particle cohesion [63]. On the one hand, the spatial variation in soil permeability rate hinders the large-scale effect of soil repulsion [64]. On the other hand, it is difficult to determine the effect of temporal and spatial variability of soil repulsion on surface runoff [65]. Therefore, in the field of wildfire and soil water characteristics, scientists need to conduct a lot of research on the relationship between soil water and runoff, infiltration, and erosion after wildfire.
The fourth quadrant (bottom right) is the basic themes, which are important to the field but not well developed (Figure 6). It can be found that erosion, wildfires, and runoff are located in the fourth quadrant, which are important to the field, but have not been well developed, and will be the focus of future research. We suggest that soil water properties after wildfires should correlate with infiltration, runoff, and erosion establishment. These hydrological processes have important theoretical significance for soil restoration and vegetation restoration after wildfires.

3.5.2. Temporal Evolution of Keyword Frequencies

The time span is divided into different periods. In a specific research area, the evolution trend of the subject can be expressed by an alluvial map [43]. The temporal evolution of all keywords in the wildfire and soil water characterization studies showed that the most-used keywords changed significantly throughout the study. The relevant research hotspots from 1990 to 2012 mainly included “wildfire”, “prescribed fire”, “soil water”, “climate change”, and “forest fire” (Figure 7). The research hotspot of 2013–2017 added “climate change” and related elements of hydrological processes, developed in the two main directions of “streamflow” and “overland flow”, and also added the keyword “soil properties”; “water” flourished in 2018–2021, and “soil water” once again became a research hotspot. In the past two years, the keywords of 2022–2023 are more abundant, and “post-fire” and “fire severity” are added. The interdisciplinary themes increased from 2013 to 2017, followed by a decline during the subsequent period from 2018 to 2021. After that, ecosystem-oriented themes suddenly rose. This significant shift is primarily influenced by climate change, with the increasing frequency of wildfires attracting more attention from organizations and experts [2,3,66,67,68]. Wildfires, as a natural phenomenon, are closely related to various elements within the natural environment and can have a substantial impact on it. Ecosystems serve as essential classification units for plants and animals within the natural environment and interact reciprocally with wildfires [69]. Soil water is a crucial hub and significant factor for many processes and functions within ecosystems. Considering ecosystems is more conducive to systematically understanding and preventing the mechanisms behind wildfire occurrences.
The changes in the most commonly used keywords reflect the changes in the core research field of science and technology in the past 30 years. In the 1990s, researchers focused on classical forest fire ecology studies. Post-2012 studies combined remote sensing and began considering more detailed hydrological processes and soil properties, with a focus more on post-fire. Firstly, the rise of satellite observations, reanalysis datasets, and Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies has significantly advanced the field of wildfire–soil water research. Integrating satellite-observed soil water data into wildfire risk management and early warning systems can provide decision-makers with real-time information, aiding in the formulation of effective fire prevention strategies [70]. Secondly, existing studies have utilized soil water and vegetation conditions to predict and assess fire susceptibility, highlighting the importance of remote sensing technology in monitoring soil dryness and fire risk [71]. In research focused on remote-sensing-based soil water estimation and fire susceptibility, the most commonly used satellite data include SMOS (Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity), Sentinel-1 (part of the European Space Agency’s Copernicus program), the LANDSAT series, MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer), GPM (Global Precipitation Measurement), SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive), and VIIRS (Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite) [30,72,73,74,75]. These analyses are very effective because they provide valuable information and potential new research trends to scientific and technological researchers and help them identify appropriate research topics.

4. Conclusions

We presented a comprehensive overview of published articles on wildfire and soil water between 1990 and 2023, based on bibliometric analysis, to understand their relationship, research characteristics, and future development trends. From 1990 to 2023, the overall number of publications increased, with an average annual increase rate of 4.4%. The average annual citations per paper exhibited a pattern of rapid increase, followed by slow growth, and then rapid decrease. Ten highly productive authors in the field contributed 12.2% of the total publications during this period. The University of Aveiro has consistently ranked first in terms of paper quantity from 1990 to 2023. The majority of the top ten productive institutions are located in the United States, Australia, and several European countries. Globally, 58 countries engage in research on wildfires and soil water, with close collaboration observed between the United States, Canada, and Spain. The four most frequently used keywords are “wildfire”, “fire”, “water repellency”, and “runoff” (with frequencies of 490, 446, 231, and 218, respectively). Water properties relevant to soil characteristics in the word cloud primarily include hydrophobicity, runoff, erosion, and infiltration. Erosion, wildfires, and runoff are crucial in the field but have yet to receive substantial development. The correlation of post-wildfire soil water properties with infiltration, runoff, and erosion processes is most likely to be addressed in future research. This will provide critical theoretical guidance for understanding wildfire mechanisms and post-fire vegetation recovery.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/fire7120434/s1, Figure S1: The temporal evolution of publications of the 5 main sources on wildfire and soil water from 1990 to 2023; Figure S2: The top 10 authors of most publications and local citations on wildfire and soil water study; Figure S3: The top 10 countries of most total article citations and publications on wildfire and soil water study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.Z.; methodology, F.Z.; software, F.Z.; validation, F.Z.; formal analysis, M.B. investigation, L.S. and Z.W.; resources, Q.Y. and Z.W.; data curation, F.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, F.Z.; writing—review and editing, Q.Y., W.Z., K.F. and F.G.; visualization, M.B.; supervision, L.S. and L.Y.; project administration, F.Z.; funding acquisition, Q.Y., Z.W. and F.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 42301019, 32201573 and 32201348; and the National Key Research and Development Program of China, grant number 2022YFC3003001.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Senande-Rivera, M.; Insua-Costa, D.; Miguez-Macho, G. Spatial and temporal expansion of global wildland fire activity in response to climate change. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Xu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Blöschl, G.; Piao, S. Mega Forest Fires Intensify Flood Magnitudes in Southeast Australia. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2023, 50, e2023GL103812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Belongia, M.F.; Wagner, C.H.; Seipp, K.Q.; Ajami, N.K. Building water resilience in the face of cascading wildfire risks. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadf9534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. González-Pelayo, O.; Prats, S.A.; Elsen, E.v.D.; Malvar, M.C.; Ritsema, C.; Bautista, S.; Keizer, J.J. The effects of wildfire frequency on post-fire soil surface water dynamics. Eur. J. For. Res. 2023, 143, 493–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Boyer, E.W.; Wagenbrenner, J.W.; Zhang, L. Wildfire and hydrological processes. Hydrol. Process. 2022, 36, e14640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Godfree, R.C.; Knerr, N.; Encinas-Viso, F.; Albrecht, D.; Bush, D.; Cargill, D.C.; Clements, M.; Gueidan, C.; Guja, L.K.; Harwood, T.; et al. Implications of the 2019–2020 megafires for the biogeography and conservation of Australian vegetation. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schimel, D.; Baker, D. The wildfire factor. Nature 2002, 420, 29–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Loehman, R.A. Drivers of wildfire carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 2020, 10, 1070–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moritz, M.A.; Batllori, E.; Bradstock, R.A.; Gill, A.M.; Handmer, J.; Hessburg, P.F.; Leonard, J.; McCaffrey, S.; Odion, D.C.; Schoennagel, T.; et al. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 2014, 515, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Langmann, B.; Duncan, B.; Textor, C.; Trentmann, J.; van der Werf, G.R. Vegetation fire emissions and their impact on air pollution and climate. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kpienbaareh, D.; Luginaah, I. After the flames then what? exploring the linkages between wildfires and household food security in the northern Savannah of Ghana. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2019, 26, 612–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yao, Q.C.; Jiang, D.B.; Zheng, B.; Wang, X.C.; Zhu, X.L.; Fang, K.Y.; Shi, L.M.; Wang, Z.; Zhong, L.H.; Pei, Y.Y.; et al. Anthropogenic warming is a key climate indicator of rising urban fire activity in China. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2024, 11, nwae163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Krueger, E.S.; Ochsner, T.E.; Quiring, S.M.; Engle, D.M.; Carlson, J.; Twidwell, D.; Fuhlendorf, S.D. Measured Soil Moisture is a Better Predictor of Large Growing-Season Wildfires than the Keetch–Byram Drought Index. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2017, 81, 490–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Krueger, E.S.; Ochsner, T.E.; Engle, D.M.; Carlson, J.; Twidwell, D.; Fuhlendorf, S.D. Soil Moisture Affects Growing-Season Wildfire Size in the Southern Great Plains. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2015, 79, 1567–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bartsch, A.; Balzter, H.; George, C. The influence of regional surface soil moisture anomalies on forest fires in Siberia observed from satellites. Environ. Res. Lett. 2009, 4, 045021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chuvieco, E.; Aguado, I.; Dimitrakopoulos, A.P. Conversion of fuel moisture content values to ignition potential for integrated fire danger assessment. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34, 2284–2293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vereecken, H.; Huisman, J.A.; Franssen, H.J.H.; Brüggemann, N.; Bogena, H.R.; Kollet, S.; Javaux, M.; van der Kruk, J.; Vanderborght, J. Soil hydrology: Recent methodological advances, challenges, and perspectives. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 2616–2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Seneviratne, S.I.; Corti, T.; Davin, E.L.; Hirschi, M.; Jaeger, E.B.; Lehner, I.; Orlowsky, B.; Teuling, A.J. Investigating soil moisture—Climate interactions in a changing climate: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2010, 99, 125–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shein, E.V. Soil hydrology: Stages of development, current state, and nearest prospects. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2010, 43, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sungmin, O.; Hou, X.; Orth, R. Observational evidence of wildfire-promoting soil moisture anomalies. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jensen, D.; Reager, J.T.; Zajic, B.; Rousseau, N.; Rodell, M.; Hinkley, E. The sensitivity of US wildfire occurrence to pre-season soil moisture conditions across ecosystems. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 014021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Burapapol, K.; Nagasawa, R. Mapping Soil Moisture as an Indicator of Wildfire Risk Using Landsat 8 Images in Sri Lanna National Park, Northern Thailand. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 8, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ebel, B.A.; Moody, J.A. Parameter estimation for multiple post-wildfire hydrologic models. Hydrol. Process. 2020, 34, 4049–4066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liu, T.; McGuire, L.A.; Oakley, N.; Cannon, F. Temporal changes in rainfall intensity–duration thresholds for post-wildfire flash floods in southern California. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2022, 22, 361–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nyman, P.; Sheridan, G.J.; Smith, H.G.; Lane, P.N. Modeling the effects of surface storage, macropore flow and water repellency on infiltration after wildfire. J. Hydrol. 2014, 513, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stiefel, L.C.; Cooley, S.C.; Johnson, B.G. Increased colluvial hollow discharge and subsequent recovery after a low intensity wildfire in the Blue Ridge Mountains, USA. Hydrol. Process. 2021, 35, e13971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ebel, B.A. The statistical power of post-fire soil-hydraulic property studies: Are we collecting sufficient infiltration measurements after wildland fires? J. Hydrol. 2022, 612, 128019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Noske, P.J.; Lane, P.N.J.; Nyman, P.; Van der Sant, R.E.; Sheridan, G.J. Predicting post-wildfire overland flow using remotely sensed indicators of forest productivity. Hydrol. Process. 2022, 36, e14769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Moody, J.A.; Shakesby, R.A.; Robichaud, P.R.; Cannon, S.H.; Martin, D.A. Current research issues related to post-wildfire runoff and erosion processes. Earth-Science Rev. 2013, 122, 10–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Krueger, E.S.; Levi, M.R.; Achieng, K.O.; Bolten, J.D.; Carlson, J.D.; Coops, N.C.; Holden, Z.A.; Magi, B.I.; Rigden, A.J.; Ochsner, T.E. Using soil moisture information to better understand and predict wildfire danger: A review of recent developments and outstanding questions. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2022, 32, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kumar, V.; Dharssi, I. Sources of soil dryness measures and forecasts for fire danger rating. Bureau Research Report No. 009. (Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology). 2015. Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/research/publications/researchreports/BRR-009.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2024).
  32. Ebel, B.A. Wildfire impacts on soil-water retention in the Colorado Front Range, United States. Water Resour Res. 2012, 48, W12515.1–W12515.12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Forkel, M.; Thonicke, K.; Beer, C.; Cramer, W.; Bartalev, S.; Schmullius, C. Extreme fire events are related to previous-year surface moisture conditions in permafrost-underlain larch forests of Siberia. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 044021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rigden, A.J.; Powell, R.S.; Trevino, A.; McColl, K.A.; Huybers, P. Microwave Retrievals of Soil Moisture Improve Grassland Wildfire Predictions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2020, 47, e2020GL091410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schaefer, A.J.; Magi, B.I. Land-Cover Dependent Relationships between Fire and Soil Moisture. Fire 2019, 2, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y. Research trends and areas of focus on the Chinese Loess Plateau: A bibliometric analysis during 1991–2018. CATENA 2020, 194, 104798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, D.; Liu, Z.; Luo, Z.; Webber, M.; Chen, J. Bibliometric and visualized analysis of emergy research. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zyoud, S.H.; Al-Jabi, S.W.; Sweileh, W.M. Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on waterpipe (narghile, shisha, hookah) tobacco smoking during the period 2003-2012. Tob. Induc. Dis. 2014, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Viana-Lora, A.; Nel-Lo-Andreu, M.G. Bibliometric analysis of trends in COVID-19 and tourism. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022, 9, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sa’ed, H.Z. Global research trends of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: A bibliometric analysis. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ellegaard, O.; Wallin, J.A. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 2015, 105, 1809–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, T.; Cui, L.; Xu, Z.; Hu, R.; Joshi, P.K.; Song, X.; Tang, L.; Xia, A.; Wang, Y.; Guo, D.; et al. Quantitative Analysis of the Research Trends and Areas in Grassland Remote Sensing: A Scientometrics Analysis of Web of Science from 1980 to 2020. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Folharini, S.; Vieira, A.; Bento-Gonçalves, A.; Silva, S.; Marques, T.; Novais, J. Bibliometric Analysis on Wildfires and Protected Areas. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Haque, K.M.S.; Uddin, M.; Ampah, J.D.; Hossen, S.; Rokonuzzaman; Hossain, Y.; Hossain, S.; Rahman, Z. Wildfires in Australia: A bibliometric analysis and a glimpse on ‘Black Summer’ (2019/2020) disaster. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 73061–73086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Neger, C.; Rosas-Paz, L.D. A Characterization of Fire-Management Research: A Bibliometric Review of Global Networks and Themes. Fire 2022, 5, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pan, M.; Zhang, S. Visualization of Prediction Methods for Wildfire Modeling Using CiteSpace: A Bibliometric Analysis. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. dos Santos, S.M.B.; Bento-Gonçalves, A.; Vieira, A. Research on Wildfires and Remote Sensing in the Last Three Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis. Forests 2021, 12, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, T.; Cui, L.; Scotton, M.; Dong, J.; Xu, Z.; Che, R.; Tang, L.; Cai, S.; Wu, W.; Andreatta, D.; et al. Characteristics and trends of grassland degradation research. J. Soils Sediments 2022, 22, 1901–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, T.; Cui, L.; Liu, L.; Chen, Y.; Liu, H.; Song, X.; Xu, Z. Advances in the study of global forest wildfires. J. Soils Sediments 2023, 23, 2654–2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Balch, J.K.; Iglesias, V.; Mahood, A.L.; Cook, M.C.; Amaral, C.; DeCastro, A.; Leyk, S.; McIntosh, T.L.; Nagy, R.C.; Denis, L.S.; et al. The fastest-growing and most destructive fires in the US (2001 to 2020). Science 2024, 386, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bousfield, C.G.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Edwards, D.P. Substantial and increasing global losses of timber-producing forest due to wildfires. Nat. Geosci. 2023, 16, 1145–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Doerr, S.H.; Shakesby, R.A.; Walsh, R. Soil water repellency: Its causes, characteristics and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth-Science Rev. 2000, 51, 33–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. DeBano, L.F.; Dekker, L.W. Water repellency bibliography. J. Hydrol. 2000, 231, 409–432. [Google Scholar]
  55. Doerr, S.H.; Shakesby, R.A.; Dekker, L.W.; Ritsema, C.J. Occurrence, prediction and hydrological effects of water repellency amongst major soil and land-use types in a humid temperate climate. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2006, 57, 741–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Scott, D.F.; Van Wyk, D.B. The effects of wildfire on soil wettability and hydrological behaviour of an afforested catchment. J. Hydrol. 1990, 121, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shakesby, R.; Coelho, C.; Ferreira, A.; Terry, J.; Walsh, R. Wildfire Impacts on Soil-Erosion and Hydrology in Wet Mediterranean Forest, Portugal. Int. J. Wildland Fire 1993, 3, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Debano, L.F.; Savage, S.M.; Hamilton, D.A. The Transfer of Heat and Hydrophobic Substances During Burning. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1976, 40, 779–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shahlaee, A.K.; Nutter, W.L.; Burroughs, E.R.; Morris, L.A. Runoff and Sediment Production from Burned Forest Sites in the Georgia Piedmont. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1991, 27, 485–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hubbert, K.; Preisler, H.; Wohlgemuth, P.; Graham, R.; Narog, M. Prescribed burning effects on soil physical properties and soil water repellency in a steep chaparral watershed, southern California, USA. Geoderma 2005, 130, 284–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Terry, J.P.; Shakesby, R.A. Soil hydrophobicity effects on rainsplash: Simulated rainfall and photographic evidence. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 1993, 18, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Miller, J.D.; Nyhan, J.W.; Yool, S.R. Modeling potential erosion due to the Cerro Grande Fire with a GIS-based implementation of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2003, 12, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gabet, E.J. Post-fire thin debris flows: Sediment transport and numerical modelling. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 2003, 28, 1341–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Robichaud, P. Fire effects on infiltration rates after prescribed fire in Northern Rocky Mountain forests, USA. J. Hydrol. 2000, 231–232, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Imeson, A.; Verstraten, J.; van Mulligen, E.; Sevink, J. The effects of fire and water repellency on infiltration and runoff under Mediterranean type forest. Catena 1992, 19, 345–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fang, K.; Yao, Q.; Guo, Z.; Zheng, B.; Du, J.; Qi, F.; Yan, P.; Li, J.; Ou, T.; Liu, J.; et al. ENSO modulates wildfire activity in China. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yao, Q.; Brown, P.M.; Liu, S.; Rocca, M.E.; Trouet, V.; Zheng, B.; Chen, H.; Li, Y.; Liu, D.; Wang, X. Pacific-Atlantic Ocean influence on wildfires in northeast China (1774 to 2010). Geophys. Res. Lett. 2017, 44, 1025–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Meng, M.; Gong, D.Y.; Lan, Y.F.; Yao, Q.C.; Shi, L.M.; Wang, Z. Significant Association Between Arctic Oscillation and Winter Wildfires in Southern China. Int. J. Disast. Risk Sci. 2024, 15, 820–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Baur, M.J.; Friend, A.D.; Pellegrini, A.F.A. Widespread and systematic effects of fire on plant–soil water relations. Nat. Geosci. 2024, 17, 1115–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ambadan, J.T.; Oja, M.; Gedalof, Z.; Berg, A.A. Satellite-Observed Soil Moisture as an Indicator of Wildfire Risk. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chaleplis, K.; Walters, A.; Fang, B.; Lakshmi, V.; Gemitzi, A. A Soil Moisture and Vegetation-Based Susceptibility Mapping Approach to Wildfire Events in Greece. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kerr, Y.H.; Waldteufel, P.; Wigneron, J.P.; Delwart, S.; Cabot, F.; Boutin, J. The SMOS Mission: New Tool for Monitoring Key Elements of the Global Water Cycle. Proc. IEEE 2010, 98, 666–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhang, F.; Zhang, L.W.; Shi, J.J.; Huang, J.F. Soil Moisture Monitoring Based on Land Surface Temperature-Vegetation Index Space Derived from MODIS Data. Pedosphere 2014, 24, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lu, Y.; Wei, C. Evaluation of microwave soil moisture data for monitoring live fuel moisture content (LFMC) over the coterminous United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 771, 145410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Bahadori, N.; Razavi-Termeh, S.V.; Sadeghi-Niaraki, A.; Al-Kindi, K.M.; Abuhmed, T.; Nazeri, B.; Choi, S.-M. Wildfire Susceptibility Mapping Using Deep Learning Algorithms in Two Satellite Imagery Dataset. Forests 2023, 14, 1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fire 07 00434 g001
Figure 1. Annual scientific production of publications on wildfire and soil water study (a) and mean number of citations per paper per year (b) from 1990 to 2023.
Figure 1. Annual scientific production of publications on wildfire and soil water study (a) and mean number of citations per paper per year (b) from 1990 to 2023.
Fire 07 00434 g001
Fire 07 00434 g002
Figure 2. Author collaboration network.
Figure 2. Author collaboration network.
Fire 07 00434 g002
Fire 07 00434 g003
Figure 3. Country scientific production. The color intensity is proportional to the number of publications in wildfire and soil water studies.
Figure 3. Country scientific production. The color intensity is proportional to the number of publications in wildfire and soil water studies.
Fire 07 00434 g003
Fire 07 00434 g004
Figure 4. Country collaboration network.
Figure 4. Country collaboration network.
Fire 07 00434 g004
Fire 07 00434 g005
Figure 5. Top 50 frequently used keywords represented by the word cloud. Labels are usually single words, and the size and color of labels represent different frequencies.
Figure 5. Top 50 frequently used keywords represented by the word cloud. Labels are usually single words, and the size and color of labels represent different frequencies.
Fire 07 00434 g005
Fire 07 00434 g006
Figure 6. Conceptual map and keyword clusters.
Figure 6. Conceptual map and keyword clusters.
Fire 07 00434 g006
Fire 07 00434 g007
Figure 7. The temporal evolution of popular keywords on wildfire and soil water study. The horizontal axis represents the year. Each node represents a popular keyword, and the size of each node is proportional to its reference frequency. The lines between nodes represent the time evolution of keywords. These lines reflect the transfer between keywords and the heritability relationship. Different colors represent different keywords.
Figure 7. The temporal evolution of popular keywords on wildfire and soil water study. The horizontal axis represents the year. Each node represents a popular keyword, and the size of each node is proportional to its reference frequency. The lines between nodes represent the time evolution of keywords. These lines reflect the transfer between keywords and the heritability relationship. Different colors represent different keywords.
Fire 07 00434 g007
Table 1. Main information regarding the data collection of wildfire and soil water.
Table 1. Main information regarding the data collection of wildfire and soil water.
DescriptionResults
Timespan1990–2023
Sources (journals, books, etc.)364
Documents1585
Annual growth rate %6.68
Document average age8.19
Average citations per doc32.04
References59,437
Keywords plus (ID)3523
Author’s keywords (DE)4190
Authors (a unique count)6638
Authors of single-authored docs48
Single-authored docs57
Co-authors per doc5.57
International co-authorships %32.56
Table 2. Top 20 most marked and cited journals with wildfire and soil water publications from 1990 to 2023.
Table 2. Top 20 most marked and cited journals with wildfire and soil water publications from 1990 to 2023.
JournalPublicationsJournalTotal Citations
Science of the Total Environment90Journal of Hydrology3215
Catena79Hydrological Processes3060
International Journal of Wildland Fire75International Journal of Wildland Fire3042
Hydrological Processes62Catena2841
Forest Ecology and Management58Forest Ecology and Management2799
Geoderma52Geoderma2120
Journal of Hydrology51Water Resources Research1888
Land Degradation & Development31Science of the Total Environment1769
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms29Soil Science Society of America Journal1728
Forests27Earth Science Reviews1384
Water Resources Research23Global Change Biology1304
Fire-Switzerland21Soil Biology & Biochemistry1204
Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface21Geomorphology1151
Rangeland Ecology & Management20Canadian Journal of Forest Research1038
Environmental Research Letters19Earth Surface Processes and Landforms1021
Geomorphology19Remote Sensing of Environment1018
Water18Science1007
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology17Ecology898
Ecosystems17Geophysical Research Letters870
Remote Sensing17Environmental Science & Technology837
Table 3. Top ten most relevant affiliations.
Table 3. Top ten most relevant affiliations.
InstitutionPublications
University of Aveiro148
US Forest Service106
Colorado State University95
University of Melbourne78
University of Arizona75
Oregon State University68
University of Alberta59
Swansea University58
Northern Arizona University57
University of Valencia57
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zuo, F.; Yao, Q.; Shi, L.; Wang, Z.; Bai, M.; Fang, K.; Guo, F.; Yuan, L.; Zhang, W. Research on Wildfire and Soil Water: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1990 to 2023. Fire 2024, 7, 434. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7120434

AMA Style

Zuo F, Yao Q, Shi L, Wang Z, Bai M, Fang K, Guo F, Yuan L, Zhang W. Research on Wildfire and Soil Water: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1990 to 2023. Fire. 2024; 7(12):434. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7120434

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zuo, Fenglin, Qichao Yao, Lamei Shi, Zhou Wang, Maowei Bai, Keyan Fang, Futao Guo, Lihua Yuan, and Weikang Zhang. 2024. "Research on Wildfire and Soil Water: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1990 to 2023" Fire 7, no. 12: 434. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7120434

APA Style

Zuo, F., Yao, Q., Shi, L., Wang, Z., Bai, M., Fang, K., Guo, F., Yuan, L., & Zhang, W. (2024). Research on Wildfire and Soil Water: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1990 to 2023. Fire, 7(12), 434. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7120434

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop