Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem service...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

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

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services in the British uplands : A methodological critique of the EMBER project. / Ashby, M.A.; Heinemeyer, A.

In: Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 57, No. 11, 01.11.2020, p. 2112-2120.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Ashby, M.A. ; Heinemeyer, A. / Prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services in the British uplands : A methodological critique of the EMBER project. In: Journal of Applied Ecology. 2020 ; Vol. 57, No. 11. pp. 2112-2120.

Bibtex

@article{7a61103d9d4d431d9077551e92ab719b,
title = "Prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services in the British uplands: A methodological critique of the EMBER project",
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.",
keywords = "ecosystem services, evidence‐based policy, experimental design, prescribed rotational burning, the EMBER project, upland habitats, ecosystem services evidence‐based policy experimental design prescribed rotational burning the EMBER project upland habitats upland land management",
author = "M.A. Ashby and A. Heinemeyer",
year = "2020",
month = nov,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1365-2664.13476",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "2112--2120",
journal = "Journal of Applied Ecology",
issn = "0021-8901",
publisher = "Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prescribed burning impacts on ecosystem services in the British uplands

T2 - A methodological critique of the EMBER project

AU - Ashby, M.A.

AU - Heinemeyer, A.

PY - 2020/11/1

Y1 - 2020/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - ecosystem services

KW - evidence‐based policy

KW - experimental design

KW - prescribed rotational burning

KW - the EMBER project

KW - upland habitats

KW - ecosystem services evidence‐based policy experimental design prescribed rotational burning the EMBER project upland habitats upland land management

U2 - 10.1111/1365-2664.13476

DO - 10.1111/1365-2664.13476

M3 - Journal article

VL - 57

SP - 2112

EP - 2120

JO - Journal of Applied Ecology

JF - Journal of Applied Ecology

SN - 0021-8901

IS - 11

ER -