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

Ashby, Mark; Heinemeyer, Andreas

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13476

Cited by 10 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This data is taken from Noble et al (2017a), and Appendix A describes how the data was calculated. Combined with the data we presented in Ashby and Heinemeyer (2019), the data in this table verifies the assertion that there are clear environmental differences between the EMBER catchments. Table 3.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…each treatment was in a single separate catchment). Also, Moss Burn (U plots), Bull Clough (Burnt plots) and Oakner Clough (W plots) differed across a range of catchment level environmental variables (showing clear gradients), such as mean monthly temperature (5.5, 6.3 and 7.7 o C, respectively), mean monthly rainfall (147.3, 123.6 and 117.1 mm, respectively), mean catchment elevation (664, 498 and 345.5 metres, respectively) and NVC community (M19b, H9 and M20b, respectively) (See Table 2 in Ashby and Heinemeyer, 2019). The fact that there is no catchment-level replication of U and W treatments means that between-catchment differences cannot be controlled for during data analysis.…”

Section: Additional Methodological Criticismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within each catchment, the authors took measurements from a single second-order stream. As highlighted in Box 1 above and by Ashby and Heinemeyer (2019), it was not possible to randomise treatments (burnt/unburnt) across catchments. Consequently, the study design used by Holden et al (2015) potentially introduced bias due to known (e.g.…”

Section: Author Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Whither scientific debate? A rebuttal of “Contextualising UK moorland burning studies: geographical versus potential sponsorship-bias effects on research conclusions” by Brown and Holden (bioRxiv 2019; 731117)

Ashby¹,

Heinemeyer²

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To read the preprint which this publication seeks to criticise, see here:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/731117v1To read our original peer-reviewed critique of the EMBER project, see here:https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.134761. We recently published a peer-reviewed critique of the EMBER report. In a preprint response, Brown & Holden (2019) resorted to making spurious accusations of undeclared competing interests, a series of disingenuous arguments about the robustness of the EMBER results, as well as false claims of sponsorship bias. We feel that much of what they wrote falls well outside the realm of respectable scientific debate.2. Crucially, however, Brown & Holden (2019) did not address our previous criticisms by providing a robust reanalysis of the EMBER report data that correctly accounted for site and covariate effects within the same statistical model. In our reply, we also present additional flaws which further call into question the EMBER results.3. Brown & Holden (2019) also produced a literature review to show that the EMBER results are not out of line with the broader evidence base. However, they included papers not directly relevant to the EMBER report we criticised. Therefore, we have carried out a more accurate review. Our results indicate that the quantity and quality of available literature make it difficult to contextualise the findings of the EMBER report.4. Finally, Brown & Holden (2019) present an error-stricken analysis of grouse moor sponsorship bias within the prescribed burning literature. Their claim that grouse moor funded research “should be treated with extreme caution by the policy community” goes well beyond what their data allows them to say. Not only does such a claim egregiously impugn the reputation of many scientists in the field, but it also contradicts the long-established notion that it is the quality of the science that should drive evidence-led policy. 5. Policy Implications. The results of the EMBER report remain unreliable. Therefore, for the time being, it should not be considered as valid evidence by policymakers. We suggest that the data from the EMBER report is reanalysed to address the shortfalls that we identify. Only then can the EMBER data and findings be used to inform upland land management policy. Also, to provide clarity to policymakers, we recommend that an independent audit into evidence reliability is carried out across the prescribed burning evidence base.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Additional Methodological Criticismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Author Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Whither scientific debate? A rebuttal of “Contextualising UK moorland burning studies: geographical versus potential sponsorship-bias effects on research conclusions” by Brown and Holden (bioRxiv 2019; 731117)

Ashby¹,

Heinemeyer²

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ashby and Heinemeyer (2019; ‘A&H’) added to the debate with their critique of four of the ‘Effects of Moorland Burning on the Ecohydrology of River basins’ (EMBER) papers published to date. In our view, the A&H paper in several places made unfounded statements apparently intended to undermine all EMBER outputs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McCarroll, Chambers, Webb, & Thom, 2016;Yallop, Clutterbuck, & Thacker, 2010). Ashby and Heinemeyer (2019;'A&H') added to the debate with their critique of four of the 'Effects of Moorland Burning on the Ecohydrology of River basins' (EMBER) papers published to date.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextualizing UK moorland burning studies with geographical variables and sponsor identity

Brown

Holden

2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

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

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 10 publications

References 23 publications

Whither scientific debate? A rebuttal of “Contextualising UK moorland burning studies: geographical versus potential sponsorship-bias effects on research conclusions” by Brown and Holden (bioRxiv 2019; 731117)

Whither scientific debate? A rebuttal of “Contextualising UK moorland burning studies: geographical versus potential sponsorship-bias effects on research conclusions” by Brown and Holden (bioRxiv 2019; 731117)

Contextualizing UK moorland burning studies with geographical variables and sponsor identity

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About