Thin vegetation to prevent wild fires

Overall effectiveness category No evidence found (no assessment)
Number of studies: 0
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Naturally, most peatlands do not burn often. Bogs and tropical peat swamps may only burn every few centuries (Lindsay et al. 2011; Page & Hooijer 2016). Some fens may burn more often, perhaps annually in parts of North America (Middleton et al. 2006).

Frequent, intense, uncontrolled wild fires may be damaging to peatland vegetation that is not adapted to cope with them. Such fires are becoming more common as a result of peatland drainage (so the peat becomes drier), logging (which opens up the canopy and makes the forest warmer and drier) and climate change (warmer, drier, more storms with lightning) (Turetsky et al. 2014; Page & Hooijer 2016). Removing some vegetation to reduce the amount of fuel for wild fires could reduce their frequency and intensity, limiting the damage to vegetation.

Caution: In peatland fires, the peat itself can burn. Fire can spread underground, within the peat. Reducing vegetation fuel loads may not control these risks.

Key peatland types where this action may be appropriate: bogs, fens/fen meadows, tropical peat swamps.

Related actions: rewet peat to prevent wild fires; build fire breaks; methods of controlling vegetation biomass: cutting, physical removal, herbicide and prescribed burning; increase ‘on the ground’ protection, including fire fighting teams.

_{Lindsay R., Birnie R. & Clough J. (2011) Burning. IUCN UK Peatland Programme Briefing Note No. 8.}

_{Middleton B., Holsten B. & van Diggelen R. (2006) Biodiversity management of fens and fen meadows by grazing, cutting and burning. Applied Vegetation Science, 9, 307–316.}

_{Page S.E. & Hooijer A. (2016) In the line of fire: the tropical peatlands of South East Asia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371, 20150176.}

_{Turetsky M.R., Benscoter B., Page S., Rein G., van der Werf G.R. & Watts A. (2014) Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nature Geoscience, 8, 11–14.}

Key messages

We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of thinning vegetation to prevent wild fires.

‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.

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.

Please cite as:

Taylor, N.G., Grillas, P. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Peatland Conservation. Pages 367-430 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:

Peatland Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	2	Synopsis Link
Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore disturbance Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	14	Synopsis Link
Rewet peat to prevent wild fires Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link