Reply to: Validity of managing peatlands with fire

Marrs, R. H.; Marsland, E.-L.; Lingard, R.; Appleby, P. G.; Piliposyan, Gayane; Rose, Robert J.; O’Reilly, John E.; Milligan, G. C.; Allen, Katherine A.; Alday, Josu G.; Santana, Víctor M.; Lee, H.; Halsall, Karen; Chiverrell, R. C.

doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0478-4

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Position Statement 8: "A number of recent studies have presented misleading conclusions resulting in the mistaken interpretation that burning is beneficial for peatland conservation and restoration (e.g. Marrs et al 2019aMarrs et al , 2019bMilligan et al 2018). "…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Position Statement 8 on misleading recent studies is incorrect. Whether the cited studies present "misleading conclusions" is currently unresolved Milligan et al 2018;Baird et al 2019;Evans et al 2019;Heinemeyer et al 2019b;Marrs et al 2019a;Marrs et al 2019b). Failing to mention this key point is a glaring omission.…”

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

show abstract

Reply to: Validity of managing peatlands with fire

Cited by 1 publication

References 9 publications

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About