Reinstate the use of traditional burning practices

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 4
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

30%
Harms

12%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Traditional burning practices in shrublands are used to create a mosaic of differently aged shrub vegetation and increase habitat openness, as well as to limit succession (Bartolomé et al. 2005, Fernandes et al. 2013, Moreira et al. 2011).

Bartolomé, J., Plaixats, J., Fanlo, R. & Boada, M. (2005) Conservation of isolated Atlantic heathlands in the Mediterranean region: effects of land-use changes in the Montseny biosphere reserve (Spain). Biological Conservation, 122, 81-88.

Fernandes, P.M., Davies, G.M., Ascoli, D., Fernández, C., Moreira, F., Rigolot, E., Stoof, C.R., Vega, J.A. & Molina, D. (2013) Prescribed burning in southern Europe: developing fire management in a dynamic landscape. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, e4-e14.

Moreira, F., Viedma, O., Arianoutsou, M., Curt, T., Koutsias, N., Rigolot, E., Barbati, A., Corona, P., Vaz, P., Xanthopoulos, G., Mouillot, F. & Bilgili, E. (2011) Landscape – wildfire interactions in southern Europe: Implications for landscape management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 2389-2402.

Study locations

Key messages

One before and after study in the UK found that prescribed burning initially decreased the cover of most plant species, but that their cover subsequently increased. A systematic review of five studies from the UK found that prescribed burning did not alter species diversity.
A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that regeneration of heather was similar in cut and burned areas. A systematic review of five studies, from Europe found that prescribed burning did not alter grass cover relative to heather cover.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A systematic review of five studies of the impact of prescribed burning on lowland heathland vegetation in North Western Europe (Newton et al. 2008) found that burning did not increase the cover of grass species, relative to heather species. There was no evidence of publication bias that would influence the outcomes of the systematic review. The systematic review summarised the impacts of burning at eight sites from five studies, four of which represented before-and-after trials. Of 266 potentially relevant references only five presented information on the impacts of burning that could be used by the systematic review.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Newton A.C., Stewart G.B., Myers G., Diaz A., Lake S., Bullock J.M. & Pullin A.S. (2009) Impacts of grazing on lowland heathland in north-west Europe. Biological Conservation, 142, 935-947.
A before-and-after study in 1978–1983 in two heathland sites in the UK (Hobbs & Gimingham 1984) found that prescribed burning initially decreased cover of most plant species, but that their cover subsequently increased. Cover of common heather Calluna vulgaris was lower immediately after burning than before burning (after: 5–42%, before: 52–100%) but this increased after three years to 9–63% cover. Similarly cover of the shrubs bell heather Erica cinerea (immediately after: 2–24%, before: 55–92%, after three years: 21–85%) and bearberry Arctosaphylos uva-ursi (immediately after: 2–43%, before: 46–97%, after three years: 5–65%) initially decreased following fire and then increased after three years. The number of plant species was lower immediately after prescribed burning than before burning (after: 4–11 species, before: 10–31 species) but this increased after three years to 19–30 species. No statistical analyses were carried out in this study. Fourteen areas of the two heathland sites were burned in 1978 or 1979. Four 1 m² quadrats were placed in each burned area and cover of plant species recorded three times a year in 1978–1980, including before burning took place.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Hobbs R.J. & Gimingham C.H. (1984) Studies on Fire in Scottish Heathland Communities II. Post-Fire Vegetation Development. Journal of Ecology, 72, 585-610.
A replicated study in 1987–1989 in a moorland site in the Yorkshire, UK (Liepert et al. 1993) found that heather Calluna vulgaris regeneration was similar in burned and cut areas. After two years, cover of heather did not differ between burned (young heather: 58%; old heather: 29%) and cut areas (young heather: 77%; old heather: 17%). Additionally, after two years, neither shoot nor seedling growth differed significantly between burned (shoot: 37 cm; seedling: 21 cm) and cut areas (shoot: 34 cm; seedling: 26 cm). Heather was burned in six plots and cut in six others. During the study the plots were exposed to light grazing by sheep. Vegetation was sampled annually in July using 0.25 m²quadrants placed in the centre of each plot.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Liepert C., Gardner S. & Rees S. (1993) Managing heather moorland: impacts of burning and cutting on Calluna regeneration. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 36, 283-293.
A systematic review of five studies of the impact of prescribed burning on lowland dry heathland vegetation in the UK (Stewart et al. 2004) found that prescribed burning did not alter the diversity (presented as Simpson’s diversity) or number of plant species of heathland sites. There was no evidence of publication bias that would influence the outcomes of the systematic review. The systematic review summarised the impacts of prescribed burning at 12 sites from five studies, with six of the sites representing before-and-after trials and the remaining six representing site comparisons. Of 280 potentially relevant references only five presented information on the impacts of prescribed fire that could be used by the systematic review.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Stewart G.B., Coles C.F. & Pullin A.S. (2004) Does burning of UK sub-montane, dry dwarf-shrub heath maintain vegetation diversity? CEE Review 03-002 (SR02). CEE (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence) Systematic Reviews, 2.

Please cite as:

Martin, P.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Shrubland and Heathland Conservation. Pages 483-525 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Related Actions

	Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
	Increase number of livestock Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	13	Synopsis Link
	Reinstate the use of traditional burning practices Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	4	Synopsis Link