Fire Effects on Soils and Restoration Strategies (Land Reconstruction and Management)

Prescribed fires have low-intensity heat and are meant to burn off unwanted brush and provide nutrients to the soil. Forest fires can also damage forest ecosystems, including soils. The extent of damage is related to the temperature of the fire and the speed at which it moves through the forest. Dry forest floors and soils can make the forest burn hotter. Extremely hot fires can sterilize the upper layer of the soils by killing the soil microbial life. They burn off large amounts of carbon stored in the soil, and change the ability of soil to absorb and retain water.

Very hot fires that burn off the forest floor leave the soil bare, and can create water-repellant soils. Increased erosion has been documented after extreme fires, with mudslides and landslides adding to the damage from the fire. The area damaged by wildfires has increased with recent droughts and an accumulation of dead wood in the forests, and the damage in terms of cost and lives has increased. Climate change is likely contributing to this increase in drought conditions 3. While many of the largest forest fires have occurred in the west, this year, extensive and damaging wildfires became news in the Eastern U.

Forests can recover quickly from fires depending on the severity of fire. The low-intensity fires prescribed by land managers help add nutrients to the soil and rejuvenate plant life. Burning can add charcoal to the soil, and may result in a short pulse of nutrients in the ash. Burning off the dead plant life, or weedy plants, increases sunlight to the forest floor. This often causes a flush of vegetation in response to the increase in light reaching the soil and available to plants. Forests recover from fires through germination of seed stored in the forest floor.

Birds and other animals may also bring in seeds. Some tree species require fire for their seeds to germinate. For example, Jack pine seeds are sealed close with a resinous bond that requires high temperatures to open and liberate the seeds. For larger, more destructive wildfires, active efforts to assist recovery may be needed. Such activities include use of silt fences, slash and mulches to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and re-seeding or replanting the area in order to get vegetation established. Forest fires have been part of nature before the days of prescribed burns, careless humans or arsonists.

They can improve the soils in the forest, which in turn helps plant life. Some types of plants need the heat of fire to germinate. For example, despite much research on the effects on heathland vegetation, evidence for vegetation succession pathways in response to combinations of burning, grazing and drainage in the UK uplands largely remains hypothetical particularly for peatlands cf. Often studies are unable to untangle complex interacting disturbances: However, they also acknowledge that subsequent nutrient and acid deposition from air pollution may also have been important.

In aerial photographs, the area they studied Lat: When burning, grazing and drainage are carried out indiscriminately, these management practices are likely to be damaging to blanket bogs and may even lead to loss of habitat [ 87 ] and C. Re-wetting and restoration of drained peatlands is widely agreed upon as a management priority. While the effects of prescribed burning demand that we make trade-offs between different ecosystem services, there is growing evidence and consensus that severe, uncontrolled wildfires can have very serious consequences.

Under drought conditions, wildfires can ignite peat layers causing smouldering peat fires and large emissions of C to the atmosphere [ 31 , 89 ]. Severe smouldering peat fires also have the potential to mobilize legacy pollutants in organic soils through volatilization or subsequent erosion e. Peak District National Park, [ 92 ].

Even where peat itself is not ignited, severe wildfires show very different rates of ground biomass moss, litter and duff consumption compared with prescribed burns [ 24 , 25 ] and are potentially associated with changes to soil C dynamics [ 23 ]. Severe wildfires over organic soils can also produce a hard, hydrophobic bitumen surface that leads to increased run-off and changes to peatland hydrology with dramatic consequences for vegetation succession [ 68 , 93 ].

Severe wildfires have also been associated with lower rates of peat accumulation than unburnt areas [ 94 ], and the loss of Sphagnum cover [ 95 ]. We re-emphasize that the effects of severe wildfires should be separated from the outcomes of a carefully managed prescribed burn, and that the ecosystem outcomes of fire differ with wide variation in fire severity.

Furthermore, Davies et al. As we will highlight below, deliberately or accidentally confounding the effects of severe wildfires with those of low-severity prescribed burns or even low-severity wildfires can be very misleading. The effects of fire vary both temporally and spatially with associated benefits and disbenefits depending on the scale one considers as well as the ecosystem services one is most interested in.

Some changes are associated with the immediate aftermath of a fire for example, changes to peat temperature regimes , while others e. It is only by understanding the overall character of current and historic fire regimes sensu [ 97 ] that one can draw robust conclusions about the ecological effects of fire. In the UK, such information is conspicuous by its absence. A few trends have, however, been noted. Most managed burning in the UK is focused in core areas for grouse moor management in the Pennines, North York Moors and Grampian regions [ 18 ].

In these regions, fires on heather moorlands are recommended to be burnt on a rotation that would, very roughly, equate to a fire every 10—25 years [ 98 ]. That does not mean everywhere should be burnt that frequently.

• Steve Blobs Easter Celebration.
• ?
• Orientierungspraktikum im Gymnasium (German Edition)?
• SAT Chemistry Subject Test Flashcard Study System: SAT Subject Exam Practice Questions & Review for the SAT Subject Test?
• ;
• Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Land Treatment Facilities;
• 1. Introduction?

It has been suggested that such burning activity has been increasing within the Peak District [ 99 ] and nationally [ 18 ], while other, older research indicated that the use of fire as a management tool may be declining in Scotland [ ]. Some of us have previously argued that such studies may be misleading and that less subjective methods are needed to map burning extent [ 24 , 25 ]. Crucially, none of the methods of estimating management history from aerial photographs used in previous studies have received any form of ground-truthing though more recently, Allen et al.

Nevertheless, the detailed national mapping study of Douglas et al. They used visual inspection of aerial photographs to define areas of Calluna -dominated vegetation and mapped burning within such communities. Taking their estimates of a mean proportion of moorland burnt in the UK during the last 25 years This results in 0. Although these are very rough estimates, they suggest considerable heterogeneity in fire regimes across the British uplands, with the majority of sites probably experiencing fire-return intervals rather longer than the 10—20 years traditionally recommended for heather moorlands.

This concurs with the results of Allen et al. The fire rotation values we estimate here are comparable with, or longer than, those associated with other peatland ecosystems where fire is a natural disturbance. For example, Vandvik et al. Yet, while fire frequency within landscapes is important, it is not the only variable of relevance in understanding the overall effect of fires. Rather, we need to quantify variation in the entire fire regime [ 97 ]. That not only includes fire frequency, but also fire intensity rate of energy release during combustion , severity immediate ecosystem effects such as vegetation consumption by the fire and sub-surface heating , extent, seasonality, and spatial and temporal variability in these attributes.

Despite the central role of fire in the ecology of UK peatland and moorland ecosystems, and the promotion of fire use for restoration of similar ecosystems in both southern [ 3 ] and northern e. However, this notion results from standardized assessment criteria that implicitly assume that fire only has damaging effects on peatlands and that, therefore, do not account for the fire ecology of our upland landscapes. The guidelines for Common Standards Monitoring practices [ ] on peatlands in UK protected areas thus make it more-or-less impossible for burned sites to be classified as being in good condition box 1 , despite the potential ecological benefits of prescribed fire.

Article Views

As Yallop et al. This monitoring therefore provides potentially misleading information, as large areas of peatland are recorded as degraded simply because they have experienced fire [ ]. No attention is given to the nature of the burns or the character of the fire regime at the site. Prescribed fire provides an array of management benefits and challenges within a UK context that vary depending on the prioritized ecosystem services.

Research has a key role in informing scientific, policy and public perceptions and debates on appropriate prescribed fire use. The interaction between research outcomes and society for a large part occurs through the public media. While science communication represents a difficult process of distilling technical research findings and complex messages into simplified media stories, effective and accurate communication is essential if appropriate land and fire management strategies are to be implemented.

Unfortunately, the way in which research is presented in the media is not always unbiased, and research can be manipulated or misinterpreted by persons or groups that may have a pre-determined agenda. We emphasize the challenges of such debate through the discussion of recent case studies [ 17 , 18 , 99 ], some of which were highly publicized within the UK media. Through these case studies, we highlight how the scientific position can become skewed both within scientific publications themselves, and in their subsequent representation within the media.

The context set by Yallop et al. This was and still is particularly true for the effects of fire on C sequestration. However, Garnett et al. It is also evident that for much of Yallop et al. This is undoubtedly a consequence of the lack of local evidence in this research area, but there is no clear acknowledgement of this carbon knowledge gap or how it impacts on the scientific debate being put forward.

This seems a relatively important point given the way the media picked up on their study, choosing to concentrate on burning impacts on peatland C emissions rather than the mapping exercise the paper was concerned with see section Representation of science within the media. The study of Douglas et al. Thus, the debate is not so much about the effectiveness of fire as a tool but rather about philosophical and societal responses to its use. A number of papers or reports are cited to suggest negative impacts of fire on soil erosion [ ], nutrient cycling and soil hydrology [ ], water quality [ ], air pollution [ ], and Sphagnum plants [ 77 ].

However, this focuses on the short-term impacts of an individual fire rather than long-term ecosystem dynamics across the fire cycle. It also fails to recognize the complex messages from each of these studies in which clear benefits of fire management could also be highlighted. They stressed the importance of understanding how fire characteristics affect post-fire run-off and erosion, as fire regimes can be manipulated to reduce potential erosion and water quality impacts. For example, where prescribed burning is less frequent, increasingly more fuel is burnt in each fire, leading to higher emissions and greater air quality impacts per fire.

Further, Douglas et al. Despite this, many of their assertions are not currently supported by scientific consensus, which is partly demonstrated by their reliance upon unpublished or non-peer reviewed reports e. This highlights an important issue: While grey literature is used in scientific evidence reviews and meta-analyses to counter publication bias [ ] one aspect of using it authors should perhaps attempt to avoid, is the tendency to cite without critical assessment.

For example, the report by Brown et al. The experimental design was fairly complex, including fire chronosequences and different sampling intensities across certain sites. A lack of statistical methodology makes scientific evaluation of findings problematic [ ]. Unfortunately, a critical and balanced assessment was, through no direct fault of the report's authors, also lacking from the resulting media reports that followed publication of the Brown et al.

Although a substantial proportion of the results presented in Brown et al. A selection of recent mainstream media i. We did not consider articles from, for example, non-governmental organization membership magazines or publications associated with particular land-use sectors. The main quote is the first paragraph of the article. While many of the articles provided some balance by reporting the opinions of a range of stakeholders including those involved in the game industry, few provided an opinion from a non-associated scientist or reflected the uncertainties involved in assessing the complex effects of prescribed burning.

In some places, however, their discussion appears to restate popularly held but unsupported assumptions and to rely heavily on unpublished material. There is considerable evidence from other systems that common species, such as S. Later, Brown et al. Notwithstanding the fact that the fuel moisture content of moss layers during the legal burning period are often high enough to make deep combustion physically impossible in all but the most severe droughts [ 22 ], there is good evidence that moss consumption during prescribed burns is very limited and that exposure of bare peat is rare [ 39 ].

Where Brown et al. They, therefore, make the common mistake of conflating fire intensity and degree of control with fire severity, when in reality the link between intensity and severity is complex [ 24 , 25 , 39 ]. While Brown et al. Finally, Brown et al.

As far as we are aware, no data have actually been published on prescribed burning practices at Hard Hill or the behaviour of the fires burnt there. In the above examples, we are not trying to suggest that Brown et al. There are substantial opportunities for misunderstanding which could result in it being deemed that the skill, intentions or understanding of particular stakeholder groups is under question.

1. 1st Edition.
2. Wilhelm von Humboldts Arbeit an Aischylos Agamemnon (German Edition).
3. Fire Effects on Soils and Restoration Strategies.
4. The role of fire in UK peatland and moorland management: the need for informed, unbiased debate.
5. Park recovery and rehabilitation after fire | NSW Environment & Heritage;
6. Check It Out;
7. Mid-Life Career Change: Desire or Necessity? (Tudor Business Publishing)?

In reality, it is in the interests of managers to ensure fires do not grow too large or intense such that they would destroy the habitat matrix grouse require, or such that they put Calluna regeneration at risk. Further data on variation in prescribed burning practice e. The results of Allen et al. In summary, these three case studies create an unbalanced tone in which the outcomes of fire are presented as generally negative.

Of course, it is clear that episodic disturbances induce significant changes in a range of environmental parameters, and that variation in disturbance regimes can drive changes in ecological structure and function. A key issue with all three case studies is that some of the evidence upon which they base their assertions is limited or incomplete, and following the citation trail often reveals insufficiently critical reliance upon either unpublished reports or a simplistic mis interpretation of complex scientific findings.

The use of fire as a management tool within the media often appears to similarly lack nuance. With regard to the papers we assessed above, for both Yallop et al. Instead, the press releases used the papers as an opportunity to make tangential and provocative inferences about associated issues.

The tone of many of these articles was staunchly anti-burning and focused on purported negative impacts of fire, even if this bore little relationship to the studies' actual focus. Many media articles concerning managed burning appear to be highly biased. For example, in the case of Pearce [ ], the focus, C losses as a result of burning, was not measured in the work reported by the scientific paper on which it was reporting [ 99 ], and the quotes and narrative it contained were highly speculative. In the case of Doward [ 16 ], the news item appeared to suggest that research conflicting with the main anti-fire narrative was influenced by its funding source The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, an organization that has a large number of members active in game management or hunting, but which is also a well-regarded research and conservation charity.

Unfortunately, as scientists we often have little control over the representation of our research within the media. Others have noted how the characteristics of scientific claims change between scholarly writing and non-specialist audiences [ ], and this is likely to remain a problem when journalists, unlike scientists, routinely refuse to allow pre-publication review of their articles even by those whose research they are covering. Despite this, the tone with which scientific output is covered in the media can be moderated through careful positioning of the research within the academic literature and in any associated press releases.

We have no access to press releases from the publication of Yallop et al. This is perhaps of little surprise given that the RSPB is in frequent conflict with the UK land-management community over a range of issues, including the ethics of driven grouse shooting and the persecution of raptors [ ]. Individuals closely associated with the RSPB have made unambiguous calls for burning to be banned [ ]. We, therefore, suspect that much of the contextualization in recent fire-related studies stems less from evidence of the environmental effects of managed burning and more from attitudes towards the forms of land ownership and other management practices associated with burning in the UK.

There are undoubtedly systemic issues associated with some aspects of grouse moor management in the UK e. While the cultural history of fire use can be an important consideration in determining fire management policy [ , ], it should certainly not be used as justification for the continuation of unsustainable practices. Here the picture becomes more complex as perceptions of sustainability depend upon the ecosystem services a particular group or individual prioritizes and there are inevitable trade-offs between different services [ ].

There are a wide range of views on issues regarding the socio-economics and ethics of private estate ownership and driven grouse shooting in the UK, both within the research community at large and among the authors here. Effective communication and understanding between different groups currently seems to be minimal. However, so too is the fact that conservationists often seem unable to make objective interpretations of individual ecological management practices, such as prescribed burning, independent of the wider moorland management context.

There can often be a complex relationship with managed fire even within a single organization. In our own research, we have experienced managers in one region not prepared to contemplate even a single research burn on a bog, while those from the same organization but based an hour up the road have actively sought us out to trial burning on similar sites.

Furthermore, RSPB research has shown the value of prescribed fire as a tool to promote woodland expansion at forest—moorland edges and to manage Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus Linnaeus, habitat [ ]. By campaigning so strongly on the presumed negative effects of burning on peatland ecosystems the RSPB thus risks undermining the ability of its own managers to use fire as an ecological tool. It would be preferable if ecological knowledge were allowed to determine attitudes rather than vice versa.

We recognize that individuals are at liberty to form their own opinions on subjective issues like the aesthetics of certain landscapes or the ethics of hunting, but as environmental scientists we have a duty to ensure we do not conflate opinion with evidence and to acknowledge where we lack knowledge. The problem with the tone of the current debate in the media was neatly summarized by Thorp [ ]: To determine how non-specialists' perceptions of fire are influenced by differences in reporting in academic and public media, we distributed one of the following to each of six separate groups of six to seven senior undergraduate and graduate students of restoration ecology at The Ohio State University USA: The material extracted from Douglas et al.

Each group of students was asked to come to a consensus about what they perceived to be the two key research findings of their reading. Responses from those reading the results section correctly concluded the key findings were that burning was increasing and that it was strongly associated with protected areas. This was in contrast with responses from those reading the discussion, press release and newspaper articles, who concluded that key findings were that burning took place in protected areas and that burning was damaging to peatland ecosystems.

The difference in the groups' perceptions demonstrate Douglas et al. In reality, the work described the spatial distribution of burning and short-term temporal trends in fire; the results of which have been questioned [ 24 , 25 ]. If we are to debate the use of fire as a management tool, it is essential that authors ensure that the press releases associated with their findings accurately reflect the content of their research as well as the uncertainty associated with ongoing research questions.

At the same time, it is also essential that journalists reporting on this clearly contentious topic do not just rely on the content of press releases from campaigning organizations but verify facts by reading the actual paper and consulting with an independent academic expert not involved in the study. Journalists reporting on scientific findings need to decide whether their duty is to report science or further their own or others' agendas.

Journalists should preferably adopt a neutral tone and make a clear distinction between research reporting and opinion pieces. Fire as a management tool is carried out at the landscape scale and induces ecological processes that span from minutes to decades following the burn. Most research relies on small plots of 1 to tens of meters and monitoring might, at best, extend for a couple of years following the fire. The only UK site where long-term evidence is available on peatland burning is Moor House in the Pennines. Even these experimental plots are not at a landscape scale m 2 [ ] and the fire rotations are unlikely to be applied in real situations as recommendations stipulate longer rotations in peatlands see Muirburn Code; [ 98 ].

Alternatives are to take chronosequence or catchment comparison type approaches as these are often the only way to approach questions regarding longer-term fire effects in the absence of replicated experiments. Unfortunately, such studies are replete with assumptions, for instance that catchments would have similar physical, chemical and hydrological characteristics in the absence of burning.

They can also have difficulty in ascribing causality, particularly where past and present management regimes cannot be adequately documented. For instance, past wildfire history may also be an important component of the fire regime. Developing an integrated, holistic understanding of the effect of variation in fire regimes on peatland ecosystems is likely to require a combination of study types and a multidisciplinary approach including land managers, ecologists, hydrologists, fire scientists, sociologists and economists Roos et al.

Coordinated, distributed experiments [ ] across different peatland ecosystems perhaps also hold promise if our aim is to try and develop more generalizable knowledge regarding fire effects on peatlands. Much knowledge also exists elsewhere in northwest Europe, where many peatland ecosystems have similar vegetation and management histories e. Limited funding for peatland research means that research groups often seem to be in competition with each other.

This has had an effect on research quality as groups with widely differing backgrounds and expertise e. A good example of this can be seen in the recent exchange between Douglas et al. Here, the reasons for the misinterpretation of the results of moderate-resolution imaging spectroradiometer MODIS fire detections by Douglas et al. We agree with the proposition in Brown et al. Working in partnership with land managers, fire professionals and other non-academic stakeholders to co-produce knowledge is another approach to extend the spatial and temporal range of data collection, incorporate local knowledge and build trust [ , ].

We do not dispute the fact that fire causes a range of ecological and environmental changes—some of which are less welcome than others and have a mixture of costs and benefits. There is, however, very considerable uncertainty, and knowledge is missing in several key areas. Ongoing research in the UK is certainly not being helped by the fact that several studies seem to be operating in a vacuum where understanding from wildland fire science and peatland ecology more generally is missing and leading to methodological and interpretational errors.

In particular here is the argument from wildland fire scientists in the USA e. This hypothesis has not yet been tested in the UK context but is often touted as a benefit of managed burning. Indeed even a baseline assessment of fuel load and continuity would be a welcome start. Whether or not current land-management priorities, burning regimes and other practices are ecologically sustainable, or morally justifiable, in the context of social and environmental change are questions that still require much further study and debate.

There is currently little scientific consensus either way, with often contradictory results on the effects of fire on DOC concentrations in moorland water [ 57 ] and gaseous C emissions from peat soils where, again, the majority of the evidence is from Moor House e. Some results, such as the finding that burning benefits at least some Sphagnum species [ 40 , ] directly challenge current perceptions and require further study. Larger catchment-scale comparisons of the type completed in Brown et al.

We argue here that the following important factoids are not verified. They require further study and should not be perpetuated in discussions until they are formally addressed:. Fire is a valued and integral component of the ecosystem manager's tool kit capable of being used as well as abused in a multiplicity of different ways. Throughout Europe, managers, ecologists and conservationists value prescribed burning as a tool to protect and restore globally rare heathland and moorland ecosystems and there is a growing body of scientific literature to inform best practice.

Much of this knowledge comes from research in the UK and it is ironic that while the public debate here has shifted strongly against the use of fire, scientists in other countries are using this evidence to promote the reintroduction of burning. Further scientific evidence is urgently needed on the benefits and costs of differing fire regimes for peatland and moorland ecosystem services. Such assessments need to focus on the landscape scale and on elucidating trends over the entire fire rotation rather than just looking at the short-term outcomes of single burns that are a pulse disturbance with obvious negative outcomes for particular metrics.

Until integrated evidence is available, all scientists should be concerned when potentially interesting and informative research is used as a forum to propagate what amounts to hearsay or to promote political agendas. The use of press releases to publicize a particular point of view when the actual scientific evidence from a study is incomplete or unrelated should be discouraged. Core principles of adaptive management include the need to monitor and learn from management actions, to keep an open mind until the evidence is settled and consensus reached, and to involve all stakeholders and viewpoints in decision making.

Managing for a single ecosystem service, be that traditional burning practices for game production or banning burning to try and reduce the colour of drinking water, is unlikely to be sustainable if the wider impacts of management regimes are not considered [ ]. It is vitally important for both scientists and journalists to ensure objective outreach and reporting on this ongoing and contentious debate as trust between stakeholders risks reaching rock-bottom. Restoring resilient peatland ecosystems that protect existing carbon stocks and function as a carbon sink is a priority for the UK and we welcome initiatives such as Scottish Natural Heritage's Peatland Plan [ ].

What is clear to us is that approaches to science and science communication that ignore complexity, seek to propagate agendas and alienate stakeholder groups on either side of the debate are not doing anyone a favour in the long term. Prescribed burning is a potential tool for peatland management and restoration along with other techniques such as grazing, cutting or ditch-blocking.

Like all ecological tools, fire can be used well or poorly and will not be suitable in all situations. We are certainly not arguing that across the UK the status quo necessarily represents best practice or that it will deliver resilient peatland ecosystems. However, if we want to retain moorlands and peatlands as one part of a diversity of upland landscape structures, fire will need to be part of their management. Although managers seem to mostly follow current recommended guidelines on burning [ ], traditional approaches to managed burning have room for improvement but do deliver important conservation benefits [ 8 , 19 ].

Our objective should be to use fire as one tool in management that aims to produce structurally diverse upland landscapes that protect a range of ecosystem functions. The conversation needs to move away from unhelpful hyperbole about banning part of the ecosystem manager's toolkit and focus on learning how to use it well. This could include better technical training in fire use, certification for fire users, explicit integration of knowledge regarding relationships between fire behaviour and fire effects, and an increased emphasis on monitoring and compliance.

Such changes would be a first step to facilitating more precise and targeted fire use that maximizes benefits, minimizes detrimental environmental impacts and builds trust between stakeholders. Discussions around the topic of this paper grew out of a plenary presentation by the lead author at the 5th International Conference of Fire Effects on Soil Properties July held at University College Dublin.

We are grateful to the conference organizers, in particular to Jon Yearsley and Guillermo Rein, for the excellent opportunities for discussing the conference provided. Two anonymous reviewers and the theme issue editors also provided very useful feedback which greatly improved the manuscript. We have no competing interests. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Fernandes , 6 Rob Marrs , 7 Katherine A. Allen , 7 Stefan H. Doerr , 8 Gareth D. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Accepted Feb This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract Fire has been used for centuries to generate and manage some of the UK's cultural landscapes. Introduction Fire, either as a management tool or as wildfire, is a landscape-scale disturbance and a critical regulator of the ecological, hydrological and biogeochemical function of landscapes around the world [ 1 — 4 ]. Open in a separate window.

Why wildfires are necessary - Jim Schulz

At its simplest level this means not confounding severe wildfire effects with those from management burns. Management fires are set in winter or early spring when soil heating is minimal. By contrast, wildfires predominantly occur in spring and summer during dry periods [ 22 ] when deep soil heating and peat ignition are much more probable. There is a continuum of burn severity across both managed burns and wildfires and this varies temporally and spatially [ 23 — 25 ].

Complexities in understanding the role of fire in peatland ecosystems a Interactions and trade-offs in peatland fire management Any ecological disturbance has benefits and costs depending on the species or ecosystem in question. Note that, in each case below, point two no signs of burning or other disturbance essentially covers all areas of blanket bog or wet heath dominated by Sphagnum and areas of blanket bog with abundant pleurocarpous and acrocarpous mosses. This means that not only can an area with Sphagnum not be in good condition if it shows any sign of being burnt, but areas of blanket bog not dominated by Sphagnum cannot be burnt either.

Oddly, according to these standards it would not matter if a manager had burnt an area with a bare-peat substrate. The unevenness should be the result of Sphagnum hummocks, lawns and hollows, or mixtures of well-developed cotton-grass tussocks and spreading bushes of dwarf shrubs. This target should also be recorded if any evidence of this is found while walking between sample locations. Generating informed, unbiased debate about the ecology of fire a Contextualization of fire research within academic literature and beyond Prescribed fire provides an array of management benefits and challenges within a UK context that vary depending on the prioritized ecosystem services.

It's the start of the UK's grouse-shooting season, attracting the rich and famous from around the world. But the country will be getting a bigger bang than it bargained for. Attempts to breed more grouse on the moors to meet rising demand are boosting the UK's contribution to global warming. And, according to a damning analysis by an independent government advisory body, the UK's upland peat bogs are facing a sustained threat from the shooting classes' desire to bag grouse. Hart [ ] Brown et al. It is a cherished landscape, close to the hearts of most of us. Yet, for the most part, whilst they are beautiful, they are a far way from a natural environment.

They are overgrazed sheep pastures and burnt grouse moors. Upland moorlands face a range of management pressures in the UK, and recent research shows vegetation burning in peatlands has altered the biodiversity of their rivers. And in line with the acronym, the results show that the damage that burning heather has on wildlife, climate change and the environment is far worse than previously thought, and more wide ranging—water run-off from burned peat harms aquatic life in the rivers that spring from these uplands.

In short, managed burning has a profound impact on the life support systems of the peatlands in our hills. Barnett [ ] Douglas et al. The event at Bradford City Hall coincides with the opening of the burning season, when moorlands are set on fire to increase game bird numbers for shooting. Priorities for future research Fire as a management tool is carried out at the landscape scale and induces ecological processes that span from minutes to decades following the burn. They require further study and should not be perpetuated in discussions until they are formally addressed: Areas associated with burning tend to have greater Calluna cover but managers do not distribute their effort randomly across landscapes and it is unclear if burning is the result or cause of increased Calluna cover.

Time scale is also important. Indeed, not burning vegetation with a substantive Calluna component will increase its dominance at least over a year period, a time range close to the natural historic fire-return interval of — years [ 40 ]. We need to quantify species responses to fire and to understand the importance of variation in burn severities and frequencies. Sphagnum species display micro-habitat differences hummock, hollow, pool and lawn and it is likely that micro-habitats will respond to burning differently given their distinct topography and moisture regimes. We also need to know whether burning limits Sphagnum recovery during peatland restoration and if so, under what fire regimes?

Northern peatlands elsewhere in the world, notably within boreal regions, can show remarkable ecohydrological resilience to burning [ , ].

What's the dirt on soil? Find out here.

Interactions with drainage can, however, induce significant changes in this regard [ ]. Such findings have received little attention in the context of UK peatland management. How does managed burning affect landscape-scale patterns in flammability; does it reduce the frequency or burn severity of wildfires? How many wildfires actually result from managed burning? In other words, how do wildfire and managed fire regimes interact? At what frequencies or severities is this true, if at all? How can we separate the confounded effects of drainage, grazing, acidification and nutrient deposition?

Unlike wildfires, managed burns appear rarely to leave areas of peat exposed, but might this vary according to fire frequency? Over what spatial and temporal scales should degradation be defined? Conclusion Fire is a valued and integral component of the ecosystem manager's tool kit capable of being used as well as abused in a multiplicity of different ways.

Acknowledgements Discussions around the topic of this paper grew out of a plenary presentation by the lead author at the 5th International Conference of Fire Effects on Soil Properties July held at University College Dublin. Authors' contributions The authors contributed equally to this publication. Competing interests We have no competing interests. Funding This article was not supported by a specific grant.

Introduction to wildland fire. John Wiley and Sons. Bowman DMJS, et al.

Rangeland Ecology & Management

Fire in the Earth system. Science , — Prescribed burning in southern Europe: Prescribed fire in North American forests and woodlands: The Flow Country—the peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland. The characteristics and effects of management fire on blanket bog vegetation in north west Scotland. The future of fire management in the British uplands. Heather moorland in the Scottish Highlands: The mid-Holocene ecological history of the moorlands of England and Wales and its relevance for conservation.

Recent pollen sedimentation and Jutland heath diagrams. Dansk Botanisk Arkiv 13 , The origin and management of Norwegian coastal heaths, as reflected by pollen analysis. Anthropogenic indicators in Pollen Diagrams 19— Management-driven evolution in a domesticated ecosystem. Managing the Land in a Changing Environment. Adaptation Sub-Committee Report Committee on Climate Change, London. Peatlands burn as gamekeepers create landscape fit for grouse-shooting. Effects of fire on the hydrology, biogeochemistry, and ecology of peatland river systems. Vegetation burning for game management in the UK uplands is increasing and overlaps spatially with soil carbon and protected areas.

Upland heather moorland in Great Britain: A review of international importance, vegetation change and some objectives for nature conservation. Does prescribed burning result in biotic homogenization of coastal heathlands? Velle LG, Vandvik V. Succession after prescribed burning in coastal Calluna heathlands along a km latitudinal gradient. Developing a fire danger rating system for the UK: FireBeaters phase I final report.