Response to: Comment on “Peatland carbon stocks and burn history: Blanket bog peat core evidence highlights charcoal impacts on peat physical properties and long‐term carbon storage” by Evans et al. (Geo: Geography and Environment 2019; e00075)

Abstract

Spheroidal Carbonaceous Particle distribution is a robust peat cohort dating tool. Charcoal impacts on carbon accumulation are context specific (i.e., controlled burns on UK blanket bog). Carbon sequestration rates need to consider topography (i.e., slope) and runoff (i.e., erosion).

Contextualising UK moorland burning studies: geographical versus potential sponsorship-bias effects on research conclusions

“…A&H suggested that the EMBER work was problematic, proposing that geographical variation had not been considered. This critique follows recent notable debates on aspects of UK moorland burning (Brown et al, 2016, Davies et al, 2016a, Davies et al, 2016b, Douglas et al, 2016, Evans et al, 2019, Heinemeyer et al, 2019 and addendums to research papers due to a lack of transparency from some authors regarding competing interests (Marrs et al, 2019a). To date, there has been no detailed wider analysis of the funding source or competing interests of scientists contributing to these debates to understand if this is a broader issue that should be taken into account.…”

“…Third, using this systematic review alongside available evidence on research funders, we show that sponsorshipbias (Lesser et al, 2007, Lexchin, 2003 may be associated with some recent research conclusions related to moorland burning. We also suggest that sponsorship interests and other conflicts of interest are of concern when they are undeclared on research outputs (Ashby and Heinemeyer, 2019, Marrs et al, 2019b and that this undermines the research conclusions from those studies.…”

Contextualizing UK moorland burning studies with geographical variables and sponsor identity

“…The basis of this criticism is unclear because: (a) analyses did examine numerous site‐specific variables and differences; (b) EMBER included experimental manipulations, so it was not solely space‐for‐time (e.g. Aspray et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2019); (c) when other authors have pointed out problems with their analyses (Evans et al, 2019), A&H defended using geographically separate study sites to justify their own research on moorland burning because ‘sampling across a wider area with climatic differences should be seen as an advantage, as it offers real and meaningful replication rather than providing detailed records for only one site' (Heinemeyer, Burn, Asena, Jones, & Ashby, 2019, p. 2).…”

Prescribed Fire in UK Heather-Dominated Blanket Bog Peatlands: A Critical Review of “Carbon Storage and Sequestration by Habitat: A Review of the Evidence (Second Edition)” by Gregg et al., 2021

“…Gregg et al also fail to highlight potential methodological issues within Garnett et al [56]. For example, the peat depth profiles do not show the expected SCP peak around 1975, and the reported charcoal layers do not agree with the oldest Hard Hill burn date of 1954 [30,122]. Furthermore, carbon content and bulk density data, both crucial aspects for the calculation of carbon accumulation rates, are based on questionable methods and assumptions and are not clearly reported on [30,60].…”