Prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services in the British uplands: A methodological critique of the EMBER project

Mark A Ashby,Andreas Heinemeyer

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13476

Mark A Ashby, Andreas Heinemeyer

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13476

Copy DOI

Abstract

Abstract Due to its novelty and scale, the EMBER project is a key study within the prescribed burning evidence base. However, it has several significant but overlooked methodological flaws. In this paper, we outline and discuss these flaws. In doing so, we aim to highlight the current paucity of evidence relating to prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services within the British uplands. We show that the results of the EMBER project are currently unreliable because: it used a correlative space‐for‐time approach; treatments were located within geographically separate and environmentally distinct sites; environmental differences between sites and treatments were not accounted for during statistical analysis; and, peat surface temperature results are suggestive of measurement error. Policy Implications. Given the importance of the EMBER project, our findings suggest that (a) government agencies and policymakers need to re‐examine the strengths and limitations of the prescribed burning evidence base; and, (b) future work needs to control for site‐specific differences so that prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services can be reliably identified.

Highlights

In recent years, researchers have begun to highlight the limited evidence surrounding prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services within the British uplands (Davies et al, 2016; Glaves et al, 2013; Harper, Doerr, Santin, Froyd, & Sinnadurai, 2018)
We show that the results of the EMBER project are currently unreliable because: it used a correlative space-for-time approach; treatments were located within geographically separate and environmentally distinct sites; environmental differences between sites and treatments were not accounted for during statistical analysis; and, peat surface temperature results are suggestive of measurement error
Given the importance of the EMBER project, our findings suggest that (a) government agencies and policymakers need to re-examine the strengths and limitations of the prescribed burning evidence base; and, (b) future work needs to control for site-specific differences so that prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services can be reliably identified

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Researchers have begun to highlight the limited evidence surrounding prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services within the British uplands (Davies et al, 2016; Glaves et al, 2013; Harper, Doerr, Santin, Froyd, & Sinnadurai, 2018). We aim to stimulate a broader debate about the current evidence linking prescribed burning with the degradation of upland ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide. We fully acknowledge that every scientific study (including ours) is limited by practical considerations such as time and cost. A thorough examination of the evidence is important in applied ecology where the implementation of the results will have practical, economic and policy-related consequences

| Background

| CONCLUSIONS