Contextualizing UK moorland burning studies with geographical variables and sponsor identity

Brown, Lee E.; Holden, Joseph

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13708

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Increased risk of managed fires getting out of control, or accidental fires in summer, which can affect extensive areas is increasingly recognized as a climate change effect in Scotland and beyond (Turetsky et al, 2015). After burning, carbon losses can occur, and the loss of vegetation cover decreases green water fluxes, increasing runoff (Brown & Holden, 2020). It is clear that climate change will force a fundamental rethink of land and water management in the Scottish Highlands and elsewhere.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A longer‐term perspective on soil moisture, groundwater and stream flow response to the 2018 drought in an experimental catchment in the Scottish Highlands

Soulsby

Scheliga

Neill

et al. 2021

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The drought of summer 2018, which affected much of Northern Europe, resulted in low river flows, biodiversity loss and threats to water supplies. In some regions, like the Scottish Highlands, the summer drought followed two consecutive, anomalously dry, winter periods. Here, we examine how the drought, and its antecedent conditions, affected soil moisture, groundwater storage, and low flows in the Bruntland Burn; a sub‐catchment of the Girnock Burn long‐term observatory in the Scottish Cairngorm Mountains. Fifty years of rainfall‐runoff observations and long‐term modelling studies in the Girnock provided unique contextualisation of this extreme event in relation to more usual summer storage dynamics. Whilst summer precipitation in 2018 was only 63% of the long‐term mean, soil moisture storage across much of the catchment were less than half of their summer average and seasonal groundwater levels were 0.5 m lower than normal. Hydrometric and isotopic observations showed that ~100 mm of river flows during the summer (May‐Sept) were sustained almost entirely by groundwater drainage, representing ~30% of evapotranspiration that occurred over the same period. A key reason that the summer drought was so severe was because the preceding two winters were also dry and failed to adequately replenish catchment soil moisture and groundwater stores. As a result, the drought had the biggest catchment storage deficits for over a decade, and likely since 1975–1976. Despite this, recovery was rapid in autumn/winter 2018, with soil and groundwater stores returning to normal winter values, along with stream flows. The study emphasizes how long‐term data from experimental sites are key to understanding the non‐linear flux‐storage interactions in catchments and the “memory effects” that govern the evolution of, and recovery from, droughts. This is invaluable both in terms of (a) giving insights into hydrological behaviours that will become more common water resource management problems in the future under climate change and (b) providing extreme data to challenge hydrological models.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After burning, carbon losses can occur, and the loss of vegetation cover decreases green water fluxes, increasing runoff (Brown & Holden, 2020). It is clear that climate change will force a fundamental rethink of land and water management in the Scottish Highlands and elsewhere.…”

Section: Past and Future Context Of The 2018 Droughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

A longer‐term perspective on soil moisture, groundwater and stream flow response to the 2018 drought in an experimental catchment in the Scottish Highlands

Soulsby

Scheliga

Neill

et al. 2021

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A conclusion that was also drawn by a more recent review of burning impacts by Harper et al (2018). At the same time, a debate has ignited about the quantity and reliability of certain studies within the prescribed burning evidence base (Ashby and Heinemeyer 2019;Brown and Holden 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…We would also argue that the EMBER report and associated peer-reviewed studies are unreliable in their current form (Brown et al 2013;Brown et al 2014;Brown et al 2015;Holden et al 2014;Holden et al 2015); since they have serious methodological flaws that have yet to be addressed (e.g. the failure to control for pseudoreplication or the confounding of study site and corresponding differences in environmental conditions with burnt and unburnt treatments) (Ashby and Heinemeyer 2019;Brown and Holden 2020). Therefore, until this issue is resolved, the EMBER report studies should not be cited to support the claim that burning has a "significant adverse impact on peatland biodiversity, carbon emissions, drinking water quality and flood management" and a much wider evidence base needs to be considered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Review of the IUCN UK Peatland Programme’s “Burning and Peatlands” Position Statement

Ashby¹,

Heinemeyer

2021

Wetlands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite substantial contrary evidence, there has been a growing tendency to present prescribed vegetation burning as a management practice that is always damaging to peatland ecosystems in the UK. This is exemplified by the “Burning and Peatlands” position statement published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature UK Peatland Programme. Indeed, while we strongly agree with several of the statements made within this position statement, it also contains a series of unverified assertions and misleading arguments that seemingly serve to simplify the narrative and paint prescribed burning as a wholly damaging peatland management tool. Given that this position statement is published by one of the UK’s most prominent peatland conservation organisations, it is likely to be consulted when debating upland land use policy. Therefore, for the benefit of policymakers, we provide a point-by-point critical review of the “Burning and Peatlands” position statement. We also discuss several further points for researchers and policymakers to consider that are consistently ignored by those attempting to simplify the narrative about prescribed burning. Our aim in producing this discussion paper is to encourage the research and policy community to move towards an evidence-based position about prescribed burning impacts on UK peatlands.

show abstract

“…By doing this, such studies artificially inflate treatment-level sample sizes, which means the significance values reported are likely much too low, and results cannot be generalised (Davies and Gray 2015). Please note that a response by two of the EMBER report authors, Brown and Holden (2020), did not adequately address any of these issues. Therefore, until this issue is resolved, the EMBER report studies should not be cited to support the claim that burning has a "significant adverse impact on peatland biodiversity, carbon emissions, drinking water quality and flood management", and a much wider evidence base needs to be considered.…”

Section: Methodological Issues: Correlative Studies Vs Controlled Experimental and Model Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An outline summary document of the current knowledge about prescribed vegetation burning impacts on ecosystem services compared to alternative mowing or no management

Heinemeyer¹,

Ashby²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lay summary of our discussion paper: A critical review of the IUCN UK Peatland Programme’s “Burning and Peatlands” position statement (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13157-021-01400-1). In short, we discuss the prescribed burning on blanket bog evidence base and its interpretation within a UK context - specifically in relation to the International Union for Conservation of Nature UK Peatland Programme "Burning and Peatlands” position statement published in 2020, and with reference to management alternatives (cutting and a cessation of management).

show abstract

Contextualizing UK moorland burning studies with geographical variables and sponsor identity

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cited by 6 publications

References 40 publications

A longer‐term perspective on soil moisture, groundwater and stream flow response to the 2018 drought in an experimental catchment in the Scottish Highlands

A longer‐term perspective on soil moisture, groundwater and stream flow response to the 2018 drought in an experimental catchment in the Scottish Highlands

A Critical Review of the IUCN UK Peatland Programme’s “Burning and Peatlands” Position Statement

An outline summary document of the current knowledge about prescribed vegetation burning impacts on ecosystem services compared to alternative mowing or no management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About