The impacts of vegetation fires on ecosystems are complex and varied affecting a range of important ecosystem services. Fire has the potential to affect the physicochemical and ecological status of water systems, alter several aspects of the carbon cycle (e.g. above- and below-ground carbon storage) and trigger changes in vegetation type and structure. Globally, fire is an essential part of land management in fire-prone regions in, e.g. Australia, the USA and some Mediterranean countries to mitigate the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires and sustain healthy ecosystems. In the less-fire prone UK, fire has a long history of usage in management for enhancing the productivity of heather, red grouse and sheep. This distinctly different socioeconomic tradition of burning underlies some of the controversy in recent decades in the UK around the use of fire. Negative public opinion and opposition from popular media have highlighted concerns around the detrimental impacts burning can have on the health and diversity of upland habitats. It is evident there are many gaps in the current knowledge around the environmental impacts of prescribed burning in less fire-prone regions (e.g. UK). Land owners and managers require a greater level of certainty on the advantages and disadvantages of prescribed burning in comparison to other techniques to better inform management practices. This paper addresses this gap by providing a critical review of published work and future research directions related to the impacts of prescribed fire on three key aspects of ecosystem services: (i) water quality, (ii) carbon dynamics and (iii) habitat composition and structure (biodiversity). Its overall aims are to provide guidance based on the current state-of-the-art for researchers, land owners, managers and policy makers on the potential effects of the use of burning and to inform the wider debate about the place of fire in modern conservation and land management in humid temperate ecosystems.

It is well established in the world’s fire-prone regions that wildfires can considerably change the hydrological dynamics of freshwater catchments. Limited research, however, has focused on the potential impacts of wildfire ash toxicity on aquatic biota. Here, we assess the chemical composition and toxicity of ash generated from wildfires in six contrasting vegetation types distributed globally (UK grassland, Spanish pine forest, Spanish heathland, USA chaparral, Australian eucalypt forest and Canadian spruce forest). Acute (48h) immobilisation tests were conducted on the extensively studied aquatic macroinvertebrate Daphnia magna, a sensitive indicator of aquatic contaminants. We found significant differences between the chemical composition and toxicity of these ash types. The UK and Spanish ash had no detectable toxicity to Daphnia magna, whereas the Australian eucalypt, USA chaparral and Canadian spruce ash all caused significant toxicity (immobilisation). The principal characteristics of the latter ash types were their high pH, and NO3−, Cl− and conductivity levels. Elevated water-soluble and total concentrations of metals (e.g. Mn, Fe, Zn, Pb, Cu and As) and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were not linked to toxicity.