Informed debate on the use of fire for peatland management means acknowledging the complexity of socio-ecological systems

G Matt Davies,Gareth D Clay,Alan Gray,Cathelijne R Stoof,Julia Mcmorrow,Davide Ascoli,Nicholas Kettridge,Rob Marrs,Katherine A Allen,Vigdis Vandvik,Paulo M Fernandes,Stefan H Doerr

doi:10.3897/natureconservation.16.10739

Abstract

The effects of fire and its use on European peatlands and heaths are the focus of considerable research and debate due to the important services these ecosystems provide and the threats they face from climatic and land-use change. Whilst in some countries ecologists are actively promoting the restoration of historic fire management regimes, in the UK the debate has become increasingly acrimonious. Positions seem entrenched between continuing the intensive form of management associated with grouse moors or ceasing burning and seeking to eliminate fire altogether. In a recent paper we argued that participants' positions appeared influenced by political and philosophical beliefs associated with, for example, private land-ownership, hunting, and associated conservation conflicts such as raptor persecution. We also suggested there was inadequate engagement with key concepts and evidence from fire and peatland ecology. We argued that management debates should aim to be inclusive and evidence-based, and to understand the benefits and costs of different fire regimes. In a strongly-worded critique of our paper, George Monbiot (author of Feral: Searching for Enchantment on the Frontiers of Rewilding) suggested we: i) framed our research question too narrowly; ii) made the implicit assumption that moorlands were the right ecosystem for the UK countryside; and iii) failed to adequately engage with arguments put forward for cessation of managed burning. Here we critically examine each of these issues to provide further insight into how adaptive, participatory land-management could develop. We argue that a productive debate must acknowledge that complex trade-offs are inevitable during ecological management. Choosing the right ecosystem is difficult, especially in a landscape with a long history of human influence, and the answer depends on the values and ecosystem services we prioritize. Natural resource management decisions will be improved if based on an understanding and valuation of the multiple scales and levels of organization at which ecological diversity exists, the role of disturbance in controlling ecosystem composition and function, and the need for participatory action.

Highlights

The ecological effects of fire in European peatlands and heathlands are the focus of considerable research and debate due to the important services these ecosystems provide (Whitfield et al 2011), their conservation importance (Thompson et al 1995), and the threats they face from climatic (Gallego-Sala et al 2010) and land-use changes (Acs et al 2010)
Human interventions in the more recent past, including drainage, high rates of livestock grazing, and intensive use of managed burning have interacted with other anthropogenic impacts such as nutrient deposition, acidification and climate change to have significant ecological consequences (Holden et al 2007)
There are undoubtedly strong arguments to be made for increasing forest and woodland cover in the British Uplands (e.g. Thomas et al 2015), but it would be incorrect to suggest that heathlands and peatlands hold no or little ecological value, or that one has to choose between these ecosystems and forests at a national or landscape scale

Summary

Introduction

The ecological effects of fire in European peatlands and heathlands are the focus of considerable research and debate due to the important services these ecosystems provide (Whitfield et al 2011), their conservation importance (Thompson et al 1995), and the threats they face from climatic (Gallego-Sala et al 2010) and land-use changes (Acs et al 2010). Monbiot has three key issues with our paper: i) that we frame our question too narrowly and pre-empt our own conclusions to favour the continued use of current forms of burning; ii) that we make the implicit assumption that moorlands are the appropriate ecological state for large areas of the British Uplands; and iii) that we failed to read and/or understand one of his recent articles and, as a result, did not adequately engage with his criticisms of burning or his arguments in favour of “rewilding”.

Objectives

Results

Conclusion